what he said. anyone speak to kirk or john about if all this is real and applies to us general MMAR holders?
-
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
what he said. anyone speak to kirk or john about if all this is real and applies to us general MMAR holders?
Buds Bundy
Member
I'll know some things shortly. Because none of us are lawyers it all speculation BUT seems that on court orders people are not covered just the ones who brought the suits forward BUT the judge said Tousaw's clients are protected by the injunction so he "speculates" it will apply to everyone.
I got some gear coming for the raffle thingy and have 3 local suppliers/manufacturers on board. Just waiting to get some free time to see two more. Should be lots of nutrients and I got a whole pimped out tent with everything needed to grow for the final draw.
Buds Bundy
Member
16:00 min?
I could tell people the answer on a 7 sec Vine video.
Conroy is telling everyone to grow and I know lots of people who are continuing on his word so I can't see him fucking over his practice if he wasn't 100% sure.
oscarthegrouch
Member
the court order says we are good to grow, and that's all that matters. carry on.
oscarthegrouch
Member
meh, they are just sore losers, the judge makes the decision not the crown, who cares what their position is. read page 41 of the ruling, the wording is very clear that it applies to everyone.
J
j0yr1d3
I've read the order a dozen times now and still doesn't really make sense. There is lots of lawyer speak. It doesn't help that every other media source is reporting a different take on it. There seems to be a lot of confusion around it to be honest, especially for people that sort of fall into a limbo category (only had ATP under MMAR, didn't renew PPL/DPL before x date etc). HC is trying to use the lawyer speak and confusion to their advantage, saying the injunction only applies to those 4 plaintiffs and not the whole MMAR program.
oscarthegrouch
Member
read section 127, it sounds good enough to me. Also this case was based on constitutional rights. Since we all have the same rights, it would apply to all would it not? I'm sure they will try to gum things up anyway they can but if the judge and lawyers say carry on then its good enough me, but I'm no lawyer and could be wrong.
wouldn't this news from tousaw mean that we are all covered?
wouldn't this news from tousaw mean that we are all covered?
hey,
i just read it on my wall. you guys make a good point, i could see seeing it that way
but, applicants refers to the mmar. we all applied, to get our licences. it would be ridiculous if he grandfathered just a handfull of people lol haha
ride the wave, dont fight it
med-man
i just read it on my wall. you guys make a good point, i could see seeing it that way
but, applicants refers to the mmar. we all applied, to get our licences. it would be ridiculous if he grandfathered just a handfull of people lol haha
ride the wave, dont fight it
med-man
I very much doubt that the Crown or the Judge is going to make a you tube video or broadcast it on the news . You heard it from many people already . Jason Wilcox said where all covered Remo said were covered and John Conroy said where covered . If after all this your still afraid to continue to grow maybe your growing for the
wrong reasons .
The judge didn't accept the crowns argument that John Conroys case wasn't a class action .
Anyone who is concerned I suggest calling John Conroyss office to find out . I mean we all threw money to have john fight for us didn't we ? I would bet after a few phone calls to his office and a few emails he will clear it up.
there is a lot of spectulation out here and Jlohn conroy already told us to grow . the crown tried to argue that it wasn't a class action for a min and the judge didn't accept that so why should conroy have to make another statement sayin we all can keep growing . Nothing has changed since the last time he told us that . T don't want to have to keep paying for John Conroy to keep telling us the same thing over and over cause people are confused over and over.
Make some calls like a few of us have and read the court cases and then make up your minds weather you still need to grow your own or you need to reg with an lp . The choice is yours . Lets put this to bed !
wrong reasons .
The judge didn't accept the crowns argument that John Conroys case wasn't a class action .
Anyone who is concerned I suggest calling John Conroyss office to find out . I mean we all threw money to have john fight for us didn't we ? I would bet after a few phone calls to his office and a few emails he will clear it up.
there is a lot of spectulation out here and Jlohn conroy already told us to grow . the crown tried to argue that it wasn't a class action for a min and the judge didn't accept that so why should conroy have to make another statement sayin we all can keep growing . Nothing has changed since the last time he told us that . T don't want to have to keep paying for John Conroy to keep telling us the same thing over and over cause people are confused over and over.
Make some calls like a few of us have and read the court cases and then make up your minds weather you still need to grow your own or you need to reg with an lp . The choice is yours . Lets put this to bed !
What are the nice people at HC saying....I know it takes up to 10biz days to reply sometime...
oscarthegrouch
Member
They say they are reviewing the decision and will have more information Monday. Really it appears they are grasping at straws and looking for any way they can to not comply. seems they have a problem with playing by the rules. Pot calling the kettle black? lol
Could you please clarify and back up your claims.
Please POST these news/media stories that are reporting a different take on it(the MMAR extension ruling). Everything I have read says we are allowed to continue growing as before with only one change, that being the 150 gram transport rule(Which is...your original amount or 150 grams...whatever is less). This only affects patients that have a daily gram limit over 5 grams. A daily limit of 5 grams and under is not affected by the new ruling, only those 6 grams and over are affected.
Here is the News coverage on the court extension/injunction that states all patients are allowed to continue growing. All these links are legitimate new agencies, available on the MMAR's Coalitions website.
http://www.theprovince.com/health/M...+their+federal+court+rules/9646849/story.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...uana-users-can-grow-at-home-for-now-1.2581742
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/03/20140321-172654.html
http://www.arrowlakesnews.com/news/251535901.html
http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...saries-encouraged-by-court-ruling-1891395.htm
Here's a link to the MMAR coalitions site.
http://www.mmarcoalitionagainstrepeal.com/index.html
Please POST a link to where Health Canada states that "the injunction only applies to those 4 plaintiffs" and not the whole MMAR program and all it's patients. All I've heard/read is Health Canada is in review of the Court Ordered Extension', which means nothing except, there taking a time out because they don't want to comment at this time...It's a "NO COMMENT" response.
PLEASE EVERYONE!...If you can't back up your accusations, stop spreading rumors and hearsay, this only turns into FEAR and CONFUSION.
We won people...Don't let a few Nay-Sayers ruin the great feeling that accompanies a win of this magnitude.
Peace...B
Buds Bundy
Member
When Tousaw went to court he aksed the judge to clarify that his clients are protected by the Allard injunction, judge said yes so Tousaw said on his site
So the judge says yes to the Tousaw clients but the court papers says the Applicants/Plaintiffs and not the whole MMAR.
I think the lawyers are saying yes because most likely unless you're already doing something else illegal if it was just growing with a license that was good past Sept 30 the case would probably be thrown out, if its before the start of the next trial. This is according to what my friends lawyer told him this morning.
The only confusion news piece i saw was form alberta but i cant find it, they where saying that some of the police forces didn't have clarity on the injunction. I recall it cause it was the only one i saw. The rest where saying we had won the injunction to grow....
