From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Commentary on Mernagh MedPot Loss   
      
   JCT: Basically, he has to go back and do it all better, is   
   what the Court of Appeal has ruled. Lots of expected errors   
   and omissions, what else to ignore that lack of doctor   
   participation exists.   
      
   With a 148 paragraph decision, it's going to be a long one   
   with plenty of angry commentary no doubt. So be it. These   
   are the genocidal powers keeping miracle herb illegal. The   
   blood is on their hands and I don't mind calling them   
   "gory."   
      
   COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO   
   CITATION: R. v. Mernagh, 2013 ONCA 67   
   DATE: 20130201   
   DOCKET: C53583   
      
   Doherty, Simmons and LaForme JJ.A.   
      
   BETWEEN   
   Her Majesty the Queen   
   Appellant   
   and   
   Matthew Mernagh   
   Respondent   
      
   Croft Michaelson and Amber Pashuk, for the appellant   
      
   Paul Lewin, for the respondent   
      
   Ryan Peck and Paul Burstein, for the interveners the   
   Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network   
   and the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario   
      
   Ryan Dalziel, Emily Lapper and Jessica Orkin, for the   
   intervener the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association   
      
   Jean-Marc Leclerc and Christi Hunter, for the intervener the   
   Canadian Civil Liberties Association   
      
   Heard: May 7 and 8, 2012   
      
   On appeal from the order of Justice Donald J. Taliano of the   
   Superior Court of Justice, dated April 11, 2011, with   
   reasons reported at 2011 ONSC 2121, 269 C.C.C. (3d) 297.   
      
   Simmons and LaForme JJ.A.:   
      
   J: A. Overview   
   [1] This is the third time in just over a decade that this   
   court has dealt with the issue of medical marihuana.   
      
   JCT: Actually, more like the 30ieth time if you count my   
   more than 2 dozen medical marijuana appeals. Har har har.   
   How could he forget?   
      
   J: In all three cases, the court has been asked to decide   
   whether Parliament's attempts to restrict the use of   
   marihuana for medical purposes are constitutional.   
      
   JCT: And in the other two dozen, the court had been asked to   
   decide whether Parliament should once again attempt to   
   restrict the use of marijuana after it had been struck down   
   by Parker and Krieger? We don't try the constitutional   
   challenge to kill it again until the judge first dismissed   
   the quash to say it was alive. Why try to do another Parker   
   killing when we can first get him to admit it's still dead.   
      
   J: [2] In the first case, R. v. Parker (2000), 49 O.R. (3d)   
   481, this court held that a blanket criminal prohibition on   
   the possession and cultivation of marihuana was   
   unconstitutional because it did not provide an exemption for   
   people who used marihuana for valid medical purposes.   
      
   JCT: Actually, that's not what it said. It said the   
   S.4(1) Possession Offence was invalid. They like to add why   
   they think why to the official Order but there's no   
   qualifier in the Parker Order, just Possession Offence   
   invalid, suspend 1 year. Of course, it was ruled a   
   prohibition on Terry's medicine was unconstitutional but the   
   Order simply said the prohibition was invalid. Not why.   
   Adding the why after the fact has a devious purpose.   
      
   J: [3] Parliament responded to Parker by introducing the   
   Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227, as   
   amended ("MMAR").   
      
   JCT: On the very second last day so that Terry Parker had no   
   actual time to get exempted in order for them to comply with   
   the Parker Court order to provide him with an exemption, not   
   an exemption application, within 1 year. So on the day Terry   
   Parker's 1-year constitutional court-granted exemption   
   expired and he wasn't protected any more, I started dancing   
   in the streets because the offence was invalid for me too   
   once they'd blown getting Parker an exemption on time. So   
   focusing not on 11 challenges to the MMAR conditions (Heaven   
   Eleven in Federal Court at Supreme Court of Canada building   
   in Ottawa (even made Cannabis Culture)) but on getting   
   admission that the Parker Day declaration had taken effect   
   for all of us including me because they'd failed to comply   
   with the Parker Court's ruling to protect him and other   
   sick.   
      
   J: The MMAR allow individuals to possess, and in some cases   
   produce, marihuana for medical purposes if they obtain   
   proper medical documentation.   
      
   JCT: Wrong, they have medical documentation of their   
   diseases already, what they need is a doctor's signature on   
   a long threatening form attesting to things they don't know.   
      
   J: [4] The MMAR sparked a second round of constitutional   
   litigation on the grounds that, among other things, the   
   criteria for obtaining a medical exemption to use marihuana   
   were too onerous.   
      
   JCT: Yes, in 2003, there were less than 500 Canadian doctors   
   out of 60,000, odds of over 120:1   
      
   J: [5] In Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 231 D.L.R. (4th) 104,   
   leave to appeal dismissed [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 5, this court   
   struck down some aspects of the MMAR, but it refused to   
   declare the scheme unconstitutional in its entirety.   
      
   JCT: But the flaws it struck down had created a Bad   
   Exemption over the past 2 years resulting in No Offence so   
   JP could get off.   
      
   J: In particular, the court upheld the constitutionality of   
   the requirement that physicians act as "gatekeepers" to   
   determine who should receive an exemption from criminal   
   liability for possessing and/or producing marihuana.   
      
   JCT: That doctors can overrule patient wishes. They could   
   have appointed lots of other professions who knew nothing   
   about marijuana as well.   
      
   J: [6] This brings us to the present appeal.   
      
   [7] In April 2008, the respondent, Matthew Mernagh, was   
   charged with producing marihuana contrary to s. 7(2)(b) of   
   the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19   
   ("CDSA"). At the outset of his trial, he applied for a   
   declaration that the combined effect of ss. 4 and 7 of the   
   CDSA (the offences of possessing and producing marihuana,   
   respectively) and the MMAR violates his rights under s. 7 of   
   the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   
      
   [8] According to Mr. Mernagh, he suffers from fibromyalgia,   
   scoliosis, epilepsy and depression. He believes that   
   marihuana alleviates his debilitating pain and helps prevent   
   seizures. He therefore asserts that he has a valid medical   
   need to produce and use marihuana and that he is entitled to   
   a constitutional exemption from the criminal prohibition   
   against those activities. The problem, he says, is that he   
   has been unable to obtain an exemption under the MMAR   
   because no physician will sign his medical declaration.   
      
   JCT: With 1,900 in 2008, the odds were 30:1 against.   
      
   [9] On the Charter application, Mr. Mernagh did not argue   
   that the MMAR are unconstitutional as they are drafted.[1]   
      
   JCT: Unlike us who argue that drafting doctors as no-sayers   
   to patient wishes is unconstitutional.   
      
   J: Rather, he argued that the MMAR are unconstitutional as   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)