-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
MMAR extension?
- Thread starter RubeGoldberg
- Start date
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The Applicants who, as of the date of this Order, hold a valid Authorization to Possess
pursuant to section 11 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, are exempt from the
repeal of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations and any other operation of the
Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations which are inconsistent with the operation of
the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, to the extent that such an Authorization to
Possess shall remain valid until such time as a decision in this case is rendered and subject to
the terms in paragraph 2 of this Order;
2. The terms of the exemption for the Applicants holding a valid Authorization to Possess
pursuant to section 11 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations shall be in accordance
with the terms of the valid Authorization to Possess held by that Applicant as of the date of
this Order, notwithstanding the expiry date stated on that Authorization to Possess, except
that the maximum quantity of dried marihuana authorized for possession shall be that which
is specified by their licence or 150 grams, whichever is less;
3. The Applicants who held, as of September 30, 2013, or were issued thereafter a valid
Personal-use Production Licence pursuant to section 24 of the Marihuana Medical Access
Regulations, or a Designated-person Production Licence pursuant to section 34 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, are exempt from the repeal of the Marihuana
Medical Access Regulations and any other operation of the Marihuana for Medical Page: 44
Purposes Regulations which is inconsistent with the operation of the Marihuana Medical
Access Regulations, to the extent that the Designated-person Production Licence or
Personal-use Production Licence held by the Applicant shall remain valid until such time as
a decision in this case is rendered at trial and subject to the terms of paragraph 4 of this
Order;
4. The terms of the exemption for an Applicant who held, as of September 30, 2013, or was
issued thereafter a valid Personal-use Production Licence pursuant to section 24 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations or a Designated-person Production Licence
pursuant to section 34 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, shall be in accordance
with the terms of their licence, notwithstanding the expiry date stated on that licence;
5. Scheduling directions shall be issued after consultation with counsel for the parties with the
view of fixing a trial date as soon as practicable;
6. The Applicants are not bound by an undertaking pursuant to r 373(2) of the Federal Court
Rules; and
7. The parties shall bear their own costs.
"Michael D. Manson"
Judge
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The Applicants who, as of the date of this Order, hold a valid Authorization to Possess
pursuant to section 11 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, are exempt from the
repeal of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations and any other operation of the
Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations which are inconsistent with the operation of
the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, to the extent that such an Authorization to
Possess shall remain valid until such time as a decision in this case is rendered and subject to
the terms in paragraph 2 of this Order;
2. The terms of the exemption for the Applicants holding a valid Authorization to Possess
pursuant to section 11 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations shall be in accordance
with the terms of the valid Authorization to Possess held by that Applicant as of the date of
this Order, notwithstanding the expiry date stated on that Authorization to Possess, except
that the maximum quantity of dried marihuana authorized for possession shall be that which
is specified by their licence or 150 grams, whichever is less;
3. The Applicants who held, as of September 30, 2013, or were issued thereafter a valid
Personal-use Production Licence pursuant to section 24 of the Marihuana Medical Access
Regulations, or a Designated-person Production Licence pursuant to section 34 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, are exempt from the repeal of the Marihuana
Medical Access Regulations and any other operation of the Marihuana for Medical Page: 44
Purposes Regulations which is inconsistent with the operation of the Marihuana Medical
Access Regulations, to the extent that the Designated-person Production Licence or
Personal-use Production Licence held by the Applicant shall remain valid until such time as
a decision in this case is rendered at trial and subject to the terms of paragraph 4 of this
Order;
4. The terms of the exemption for an Applicant who held, as of September 30, 2013, or was
issued thereafter a valid Personal-use Production Licence pursuant to section 24 of the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations or a Designated-person Production Licence
pursuant to section 34 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, shall be in accordance
with the terms of their licence, notwithstanding the expiry date stated on that licence;
5. Scheduling directions shall be issued after consultation with counsel for the parties with the
view of fixing a trial date as soon as practicable;
6. The Applicants are not bound by an undertaking pursuant to r 373(2) of the Federal Court
Rules; and
7. The parties shall bear their own costs.
"Michael D. Manson"
Judge
B
bench warmer
:jawdrop: :jawdrop: jawdrop:
Buds Bundy
Member
So possession licenses that expired before today are now invalid?
BC*Dankster*
Active member
Ya Im confused too< say if someones license was renewed in september 2013, can they go til sept 2014, even if their license says only til march 31 2014? Can all license holders just keep going until the decision is made after trial? Someone please break it down for me, I smoked too much cheeba today lol.
licenses before the sept 30th 2013
which means my august expiry fucks me
although i'll see what i can doBuds Bundy
Member
That's for the PPL the first one from what it looks like is referring to the Authorization To Posses license.
phatpharmer
Member
nothing changes guys if you were liscened as of sept 31 2013 your good till the trial. The only change iv heard is only 150g you can have on you when traveling but iv also heard its 30x your script for travel not sure which 1 is true but the PPL stays the same so does the PPL storage amount
ATTN: growers and holders
ATTN: growers and holders
keep page 43-44 of the judgement with any hc paperwork you have
rcmp are ignorant and uneducated
having an authorized court order with the judges name will quell any peace officer bullshit
med-man
ATTN: growers and holders
keep page 43-44 of the judgement with any hc paperwork you have
rcmp are ignorant and uneducated
having an authorized court order with the judges name will quell any peace officer bullshit
med-man
Blessed.
you are good until trials over
expect everyone to get grandfathered
"mark my words" chefboy lol
med-man
Buds Bundy
Member
Was about to post, where's chefguy...
I think the gov will come in and revise the MMAR to allow much smaller numbers, square footage size and maybe hit at the cities to change the bylaws to try to kill it which ever way they can.
Surrey city nazis must be just pissed right off now, they're extortion bonuses wont be coming in at the end of the month.
Buds Bundy
Member
So are the production licenses grandfathered in without the need for a renewal?
Buds Bundy
Member
Under the terms of the injunction, patients who were licensed to possess or grow marijuana, whether for their own personal use or as a designated person for another patient, as of Sept. 30 of last year can continue to do so.
Buds Bundy
Member
Wooo Supreme Court don't like Harper http://www.vancouversun.com/news/na...n+latest+legal+blow+Harper/9645500/story.html
Getting a lot of pms about this, so here are a few interpretations:
1) if your licenses are dated to expire AFTER Sept 31st, 2013 this ruling applies to you. ATP, DPL, PPL licenses are extended until the ruling in the case at trial, if they were valid AFTER Sept 31st, 2013.
2) You will be limited to 150 gams of dried marijuana, I don't see any mention of changes to plant counts etc. There is NOTHING that says your storage amount remains the same, to be protected I suggest staying under 150 grams of dried cannabis (in BC that can include extracts, resins, etc due to a previous ruling in a BC Court).
3) Don't listen to me or any other armchair lawyers, call Kirk Tousaw, John Conroy, Alan Young, Paul Llewellyn (sp?) or any other qualified lawyer familiar with the MMAR and who has read today's ruling, and get advice on how to proceed in your specific circumstance. Don't get complacent!
4) ORGANIZE, this is not over this is just the beginning. We heard lots of negative talk about John Conroy, I think todays result shut a lot of those folks up hopefully for good. John et al are on OUR SIDE, and we MUST support them, and much better than we did this round. I will be releasing some prime, rare seeds who's sale proceeds will go towards John's legal fund, I implore al of you to find a way to support John's efforts financially, because he is not getting rich off this, he has articling students that need to be paid to help prepare the case. Respect to medman for already putting up 1000 seeds towards this goal, and I encourage him to keep going and provide documentation showing the support/payment to Conroy to keep this all transparent.
6) Visit your local headshop, dispensary or other activist forums, and let's coordinate together to show our support for homegrown medicine for sick canadians- cannabis is a SAFE and harmless PLANT that can be grown by anyone to medicate themselves without endangering the surrounding community, this is a FACT of which the general community/ canadian society needs to be made aware. We need to fight the propaganda from the neocons with FACTS and documented evidence. We will win this fight in the court of public opinion, so let's do our bit to bring this on home for everyone.
I want to make it clear that I support both PPL and DPL rights. I also support the LP scheme (although I have no involvement with any canadian LP companies) because it too will fill a void for some canadians who find it easier to purchase quality medicine than grow it, and that medicine should meet a quality standard and be consistent in cannabinoid and terpene content, free from pesticides, and free from biological contamination. Bottom line, if you are selling cannabis to patients or anybody, it should be safe and tested. If you wish to grow your own, you don't need to meet that burden, just like if you were brewing your own beer or wine vs selling it.
Congrats to all patients, today was a win for justivce and common sense, in Canada we need to protect the rights of the sick and less priviledged, and we cannot allow a corporate model to trump the rights of ordinary citizens to self medicate at a reasonable cost, when they are harming noone.
1) if your licenses are dated to expire AFTER Sept 31st, 2013 this ruling applies to you. ATP, DPL, PPL licenses are extended until the ruling in the case at trial, if they were valid AFTER Sept 31st, 2013.
2) You will be limited to 150 gams of dried marijuana, I don't see any mention of changes to plant counts etc. There is NOTHING that says your storage amount remains the same, to be protected I suggest staying under 150 grams of dried cannabis (in BC that can include extracts, resins, etc due to a previous ruling in a BC Court).
3) Don't listen to me or any other armchair lawyers, call Kirk Tousaw, John Conroy, Alan Young, Paul Llewellyn (sp?) or any other qualified lawyer familiar with the MMAR and who has read today's ruling, and get advice on how to proceed in your specific circumstance. Don't get complacent!
4) ORGANIZE, this is not over this is just the beginning. We heard lots of negative talk about John Conroy, I think todays result shut a lot of those folks up hopefully for good. John et al are on OUR SIDE, and we MUST support them, and much better than we did this round. I will be releasing some prime, rare seeds who's sale proceeds will go towards John's legal fund, I implore al of you to find a way to support John's efforts financially, because he is not getting rich off this, he has articling students that need to be paid to help prepare the case. Respect to medman for already putting up 1000 seeds towards this goal, and I encourage him to keep going and provide documentation showing the support/payment to Conroy to keep this all transparent.
6) Visit your local headshop, dispensary or other activist forums, and let's coordinate together to show our support for homegrown medicine for sick canadians- cannabis is a SAFE and harmless PLANT that can be grown by anyone to medicate themselves without endangering the surrounding community, this is a FACT of which the general community/ canadian society needs to be made aware. We need to fight the propaganda from the neocons with FACTS and documented evidence. We will win this fight in the court of public opinion, so let's do our bit to bring this on home for everyone.
I want to make it clear that I support both PPL and DPL rights. I also support the LP scheme (although I have no involvement with any canadian LP companies) because it too will fill a void for some canadians who find it easier to purchase quality medicine than grow it, and that medicine should meet a quality standard and be consistent in cannabinoid and terpene content, free from pesticides, and free from biological contamination. Bottom line, if you are selling cannabis to patients or anybody, it should be safe and tested. If you wish to grow your own, you don't need to meet that burden, just like if you were brewing your own beer or wine vs selling it.
Congrats to all patients, today was a win for justivce and common sense, in Canada we need to protect the rights of the sick and less priviledged, and we cannot allow a corporate model to trump the rights of ordinary citizens to self medicate at a reasonable cost, when they are harming noone.
