-
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
Dana Larsen just said he would match any donation made from now till the 1st of April to the MMAR Coalition Against Repeal so if your going to donate now is the perfect opportunity I'm sending 150$ any1 else who can donate should now!!! Good on Dana putting his money where his mouth is
PayPal makes it easy; just sent a C-note.
Dana Larsen just said he would match any donation made from now till the 1st of April to the MMAR Coalition Against Repeal so if your going to donate now is the perfect opportunity I'm sending 150$ any1 else who can donate should now!!! Good on Dana putting his money where his mouth is
If you wish to help the Mr. Conroy and Constitutional Challenge but you are on fixed income needing every dollar just to survive. You could do your part by donating a percentage(small or large...your choice) of monies received from the "Privacy Class Action Lawsuit", which every MMAR patient is automatically included. This money may or may not come into being, but if it did, it would be like found money. It wouldn't hurt to donate some of this found money...Can't miss what you never had.
Myself and my partner have already sent our forms in...Please join us and give what you can. If we lose the right to grow, we will never get it back.
Here's the link to the donation form(print it...fill it...send it...thx):
http://www.mmarcoalitionagainstrepeal.com/pdf/Pledge.pdf
Thank you all
Peace...B
outdoordreams
Active member
If we can not change our addresses then we will have to fight that.
In November, Health Canada sent out our addresses, names and the name of the MMAR program. This essentially made it unsafe to cultivate our own medicine at these addresses. Not allowing us to change addresses jeopardizes our safety.
In November, Health Canada sent out our addresses, names and the name of the MMAR program. This essentially made it unsafe to cultivate our own medicine at these addresses. Not allowing us to change addresses jeopardizes our safety.
PARADOX
Active member
this is from the coalition against repeal FB page.. Looks like they are trying to get address location changes pushed through
From John Conroy
Sunday, March 23, 2014 update
In all of my discussions with Government counsel in relation to class actions, representative actions and constitutional challenges and their differences he has agreed that in this constitutional challenge, if the MMPR are found to impact the constitutional rights of one, then they will impact the constitutional rights of all.
In paragraphs 6 and 7 of our Statement of Claim we say the following:
6. The Plaintiffs bring these claims for declaratory relief and interlocutory and permanent relief pursuant the Federal Court Act and Rules and ss.7 and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on behalf of themselves as persons ordinarily resident in Canada who have been medically approved to use cannabis as medicine as a patient under professional treatment for a condition for which the person is receiving treatment either under:
All persons ordinarily resident in Canada who have been medically approved to use cannabis as medicine as a patient under professional treatment for a condition for which the person is receiving treatment, either under the Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1041, the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR) SOR/2001-227 since July 30th, 2001 or the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) since June 19th, 2013 and in particular since September 30th, 2013.
7. The number of patients approved under the NCR and under the MMPR since June 19th, 2013 or in particular since September 30th, 2013, when no further amendments could be made to existing MMAR licences, are unknown. There are approximately 35,000 to 40,000 patients currently holding Authorizations to Possess (ATPs) under the MMAR, of which some 24,000 - 30,000 hold Personal Production Licences (PPLs). Some 4,250 of those patients have Authorizations to Possess (ATPs) and rely upon a person responsible for them as a Designated Grower (DG) to produce their medicine for them. Some 6,000 of those patients obtain their medicine through the government supply. The specific details with respect to these statistics are within the knowledge and possession of the Defendant.
In their Statement of Defense, the Government says the following about paragraphs 6 and 7 in its paragraph 20:
20. In response to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Amended Statement of Claim which imply that all individuals presently holding an ATP are "parties" to this proceeding, the Defendant says this is not a class action. The Defendant nevertheless acknowledges that any declarations made with respect to the constitutionality of the impugned legislation will impact not only the Plaintiffs, but also all individuals who are presently authorized to possess or produce marihuana for medical purposes, any individuals who may wish to be authorized in the future, as well as current and future licensed producers, first responders (police, fire, ambulance), neighbors of residential properties were marihuana is presently grown for medical purposes, as well as the public at large.
In our Reply we said the following, about paragraph 20 of their Defense:
In reply to the latter part of paragraph 20, the Plaintiffs say that whatever the impacts are of any Declarations made by the Court with respect to the constitutionality of the impugned legislation on current and future licenced producers, first responders (police, fire, ambulance) neighbours of residential properties where marihuana is presently grown for medical purposes, as well as the public at large, will be different types of impact in that it will not necessarily impact their constitutional rights and any potential impacts on them are remedial by reasonable regulation to render such impacts to be minimal or non existent. The Plaintiffs put the Defendants to the strict proof of such impacts on such groups enumerated between 1999 and 2014.
I have set out below at the end the key paragraph 126 from the Reasons for Judgment and the relevant terms of the Order regarding PPL's and DG's.
The questions one needs to ask oneself are:
1.Do I currently(now until March 31st) hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG?; If the answer is 'yes' then you are grandfathered until further Order of the court the only change being the 150gm possession limit;
2.Did I hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG on September 30th,2013?;If you had one then and didn't renew later you are still covered as above as long as you had valid documents on the key date;
3.Do I hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG issued after September 30th,2013 whether a new one or amended one? If you managed to renew after that date you are covered.
It seems to me that this covers everyone except those who expired before September 30, 2013 and didn't renew at all.
If the answer is 'yes' to any of these you are grandfathered until the trial and your licence despite its Expiry date continues according to its terms - plants ,storage etc and you do not have to re apply or renew. Your ATP possession limit when on your person is max 150 grms.
Applications for completely new MMAR licences will not be accepted pending trial.
Just because you did not renew does not mean you don't fit into one of the category above.
Once we know how many are affected by new locations/addresses issue we will see if the court will remedy that problem .
John W. Conroy QC
Reasons for Judgment
[126] In effect, the Applicants seek the regulatory scheme as it was under the MMAR and do not object to the provisions of the MMPR that relate to private growers. The way in which this can be accomplished in a manner least intrusive to the legislative sphere is to exempt those who currently hold a valid ATP, who held a valid DPL or PPL as of September 30, 2013, or hold a valid amended or new DPL or PPL that was issued after September 30, 2013, from the repeal of the MMAR and any provisions of the MMPR which are inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the MMAR, pending an expeditious trial and a decision of this case on its merits.
Relief or Order
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 Purposes Regulations, which is inconsistent with the operation of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, to the extent that the Designated - person Production License or Personal-use Production License 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 License pursuant to section 24 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations or a Designated-person Production License pursuant to section 34 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, shall be in accordance with the terms of their license, notwithstanding the expiry date stated on that license.
From John Conroy
Sunday, March 23, 2014 update
In all of my discussions with Government counsel in relation to class actions, representative actions and constitutional challenges and their differences he has agreed that in this constitutional challenge, if the MMPR are found to impact the constitutional rights of one, then they will impact the constitutional rights of all.
In paragraphs 6 and 7 of our Statement of Claim we say the following:
6. The Plaintiffs bring these claims for declaratory relief and interlocutory and permanent relief pursuant the Federal Court Act and Rules and ss.7 and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on behalf of themselves as persons ordinarily resident in Canada who have been medically approved to use cannabis as medicine as a patient under professional treatment for a condition for which the person is receiving treatment either under:
All persons ordinarily resident in Canada who have been medically approved to use cannabis as medicine as a patient under professional treatment for a condition for which the person is receiving treatment, either under the Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1041, the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR) SOR/2001-227 since July 30th, 2001 or the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) since June 19th, 2013 and in particular since September 30th, 2013.
7. The number of patients approved under the NCR and under the MMPR since June 19th, 2013 or in particular since September 30th, 2013, when no further amendments could be made to existing MMAR licences, are unknown. There are approximately 35,000 to 40,000 patients currently holding Authorizations to Possess (ATPs) under the MMAR, of which some 24,000 - 30,000 hold Personal Production Licences (PPLs). Some 4,250 of those patients have Authorizations to Possess (ATPs) and rely upon a person responsible for them as a Designated Grower (DG) to produce their medicine for them. Some 6,000 of those patients obtain their medicine through the government supply. The specific details with respect to these statistics are within the knowledge and possession of the Defendant.
In their Statement of Defense, the Government says the following about paragraphs 6 and 7 in its paragraph 20:
20. In response to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Amended Statement of Claim which imply that all individuals presently holding an ATP are "parties" to this proceeding, the Defendant says this is not a class action. The Defendant nevertheless acknowledges that any declarations made with respect to the constitutionality of the impugned legislation will impact not only the Plaintiffs, but also all individuals who are presently authorized to possess or produce marihuana for medical purposes, any individuals who may wish to be authorized in the future, as well as current and future licensed producers, first responders (police, fire, ambulance), neighbors of residential properties were marihuana is presently grown for medical purposes, as well as the public at large.
In our Reply we said the following, about paragraph 20 of their Defense:
In reply to the latter part of paragraph 20, the Plaintiffs say that whatever the impacts are of any Declarations made by the Court with respect to the constitutionality of the impugned legislation on current and future licenced producers, first responders (police, fire, ambulance) neighbours of residential properties where marihuana is presently grown for medical purposes, as well as the public at large, will be different types of impact in that it will not necessarily impact their constitutional rights and any potential impacts on them are remedial by reasonable regulation to render such impacts to be minimal or non existent. The Plaintiffs put the Defendants to the strict proof of such impacts on such groups enumerated between 1999 and 2014.
I have set out below at the end the key paragraph 126 from the Reasons for Judgment and the relevant terms of the Order regarding PPL's and DG's.
The questions one needs to ask oneself are:
1.Do I currently(now until March 31st) hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG?; If the answer is 'yes' then you are grandfathered until further Order of the court the only change being the 150gm possession limit;
2.Did I hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG on September 30th,2013?;If you had one then and didn't renew later you are still covered as above as long as you had valid documents on the key date;
3.Do I hold a valid ATP/PPL or ATP/DG issued after September 30th,2013 whether a new one or amended one? If you managed to renew after that date you are covered.
It seems to me that this covers everyone except those who expired before September 30, 2013 and didn't renew at all.
If the answer is 'yes' to any of these you are grandfathered until the trial and your licence despite its Expiry date continues according to its terms - plants ,storage etc and you do not have to re apply or renew. Your ATP possession limit when on your person is max 150 grms.
Applications for completely new MMAR licences will not be accepted pending trial.
Just because you did not renew does not mean you don't fit into one of the category above.
Once we know how many are affected by new locations/addresses issue we will see if the court will remedy that problem .
John W. Conroy QC
Reasons for Judgment
[126] In effect, the Applicants seek the regulatory scheme as it was under the MMAR and do not object to the provisions of the MMPR that relate to private growers. The way in which this can be accomplished in a manner least intrusive to the legislative sphere is to exempt those who currently hold a valid ATP, who held a valid DPL or PPL as of September 30, 2013, or hold a valid amended or new DPL or PPL that was issued after September 30, 2013, from the repeal of the MMAR and any provisions of the MMPR which are inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the MMAR, pending an expeditious trial and a decision of this case on its merits.
Relief or Order
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 Purposes Regulations, which is inconsistent with the operation of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, to the extent that the Designated - person Production License or Personal-use Production License 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 License pursuant to section 24 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations or a Designated-person Production License pursuant to section 34 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, shall be in accordance with the terms of their license, notwithstanding the expiry date stated on that license.
Back to it,.........
Back to it,.........
http://youtu.be/WVtRyrOaoZA
for all of you who hoped for the best n prepared for the worst,
back 2 the grow room.
TS
Back to it,.........
http://youtu.be/WVtRyrOaoZAfor all of you who hoped for the best n prepared for the worst,
back 2 the grow room.
TS
Last edited:
This is a letter from my sleazy 500 dollar per signature doctor that I got...
I'm also screwed with an expired license in august. So not trying to shit on your cereal.
In summary, if you possessed a valid Authorization To Possess (ATP), a valid Personal Production License (PPL) and/or a valid Designated Personal License (DPL) on September 30, 2013 then you are now automatically "grandfathered" into the MMAR program:
(a) You are allowed to have in storage at home the maximum number of grams stated on you pink ATP form to possess at any one time -- but you can not travel with more than 150 grams.
(b) You are only allowed to travel and possess on your person 150 grams at a time. This is the new universal maximum amount that can be carried by both MMAR and MMPR recipients.
(c) If you held a valid license on September 20, 2013 then you do need to see a physician or get anything signed.
PLEASE NOTE: If you did not have a valid ATP, PPL and/or DPL September 30, 2013 then you are NOT grandfathered into the MMAR program and CANNOT grow cannabis and CANNOT reapply.
Unfortunately, no further applications for the Health Canada Medicinal Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR) are accepted. If your ATP was expired before September 30, 2013, the your MMAR is permanently and irreversibly expired.
For these patients (not holding a valid license as of September 30, 2013) the new MMPR regulations taking effect on April 1, 2014 are your only way to aquire medical cannabis:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/index-eng.php
If you did not possess a valid ATP on September 30, 2013 then you are now in a situation where you will be needing to purchase your cannabis from a Health Canada Licensed Producer:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php
As always, if you have medical questions, please call our office and book an appointment: +1-604-858-5300
Please forward this email to anyone you know to be a patient or who might benefit from information presented on my website. Encourage others to sign up for my webpages to assist me in spreading useful information.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gwyllyn Goddard Bsc MD CCFP
www.gwyllyngoddard.com
Office phone: +1-604-858-5300
at 500bucks it was worth it to not have to worry about getting pulled over when my wife is driving cause I'm medicated and not have to worry about a possession charge(cause I reek of meds) and the 2+k it would cost me to get some community service and house arrest.
My Dr referred me to the Dr. who prescribed it...sure the 500bucks sucks...but at 150 an oz for me to BUY....so if I grow and smoke just 4OZ it is a wash for me.
Now if your licence was just a for profit thing....seems you made a poor biz choice...it sucks, I have made a few myself in the non MJ world...always cover your bases...hard lesson. Upside your in BC I think and it seems like nobody cares there.
If it was for pain...I truly feel bad for you.. I have a buddy in the same boat....(except he couldn't grow for shit and lost money trying to grow meds for himself)...but he could have learned.
My Dr referred me to the Dr. who prescribed it...sure the 500bucks sucks...but at 150 an oz for me to BUY....so if I grow and smoke just 4OZ it is a wash for me.
Now if your licence was just a for profit thing....seems you made a poor biz choice...it sucks, I have made a few myself in the non MJ world...always cover your bases...hard lesson. Upside your in BC I think and it seems like nobody cares there.
If it was for pain...I truly feel bad for you.. I have a buddy in the same boat....(except he couldn't grow for shit and lost money trying to grow meds for himself)...but he could have learned.
northernkush
Member
I really hope that we can change addresses. With all that has happened I do not feel safe in my current location especially with that mail that came to my grow spot
alarm...cameras....and a dog... I prefer GSD's but that is cause they are easily trainable and the females are very protective of their turf/family.
northernkush
Member
I have alarm. Cameras....two dogs.......all of those are trumped by paranoid wife and toddler.
Either way im changing where i grow. If i get busted i will be fighting it for sure
Either way im changing where i grow. If i get busted i will be fighting it for sure
Buds Bundy
Member
Lol won't someone think about the poor children I mean LP's. Well thats quite the turn around and talk of subsidies LOL Business model FAIL.
Considering its the gov fault for not implementing an inspection system that could have forced everyone into compliance now they are bitching about those poor commercial growers that half them grew with their PPL's for profit.
Who would have though that jumping in on a business model and creating a company before the all the legal stuff was finalized and charging more then the black market for your product could have dire consequences.
I think the key to a LP's success will be genetics, large scale grow outs,and working hand in hand with universities.{ubc etc etc}. Let face it this is just not a canadian issue it is a world issue and for some reason the world thinks canada has the sticky icky when it comes to med cannabis lol. The thing will be getting the price/quality to a place where it will level the playing field, can it be done? As we speak countries near the equator with big sun will become the go to spots for production. Full sun no rain lots a water forget about it////
listen guys
conroy is an expert in this field.
there is no crown in the world that will talk him down in a court of law. its like einstien vs a brick lol
expect all 40,000 to be allowed to continue for life. expect the million other users to come on board and support lp's
med-man
conroy is an expert in this field.
there is no crown in the world that will talk him down in a court of law. its like einstien vs a brick lol
expect all 40,000 to be allowed to continue for life. expect the million other users to come on board and support lp's
med-man
fuckin a.
