Medicinal pot growers busted for trafficking

[ParadigmShift]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-2001-227/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:l_3-gb:s_68


"68.1 The Minister is authorized to communicate any of the following information to a Canadian police force or a member of a Canadian police force who requests the information in the course of an investigation under the Act or these Regulations, subject to that information being used only for the purpose of that investigation and the proper administration or enforcement of the Act or these Regulations:
(a) in respect of a named individual, whether the individual is the holder of an authorization to possess or a licence to produce;
(b) in respect of a specified address, whether the address is
(i) the place where the holder of an authorization to possess ordinarily resides and, if so, the name of the holder of the authorization and the applicable authorization number,
(ii) the site where the production of marihuana is authorized under a licence to produce and, if so, the name of the holder of the licence and the applicable licence number, or
(iii) the site where dried marihuana may be kept under a licence to produce and, if so, the name of the holder of the licence and the applicable licence number;
(c) in respect of an authorization to possess,
(i) the name, date of birth and gender of the holder of the authorization,
(ii) the full address of the place where the holder ordinarily resides,
(iii) the authorization number,
(iv) the maximum quantity of dried marihuana that the holder is authorized to possess,
(v) the dates of issue and expiry, and
(vi) if the authorization has expired, whether an application to renew the authorization has been made prior to the date of expiry and the status of the application; and
(d) in respect of a licence to produce,
(i) the name, date of birth and gender of the holder of the licence,
(ii) the full address of the place where the holder ordinarily resides,
(iii) the licence number,
(iv) the full address of the site where the production of marihuana is authorized,
(v) the authorized production area,
(vi) the maximum number of marihuana plants that may be under production at the production site at any time,
(vii) the full address of the site where dried marihuana may be kept,
(viii) the maximum quantity of dried marihuana that may be kept at the site referred to in subparagraph (vii) at any time,
(ix) the dates of issue and expiry, and
(x) if the licence has expired, whether an application has been made to renew the licence prior to the date of expiry and the status of the application.

SOR/2005-177, s. 29; SOR/2007-207, s. 22(E)."

 

[ParadigmShift]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-2001-227/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:l_3-gb:s_68

57.(2) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-place without the consent of an occupant of the dwelling-place.


Inspection
57. (1) To verify that the production of marihuana is in conformity with these Regulations and a licence to produce, an inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that marihuana is being produced or kept by the holder of the licence to produce, and may, for that purpose,
(a) open and examine any receptacle or package found there that could contain marihuana;
(b) examine anything found there that is used or may be capable of being used to produce or keep marihuana;
(c) examine any records, electronic data or other documents found there dealing with marihuana, other than records dealing with the medical condition of a person, and make copies or take extracts;
(d) use, or cause to be used, any computer system found there to examine electronic data referred to in paragraph (c);
(e) reproduce, or cause to be reproduced, any document from electronic data referred to in paragraph (c) in the form of a printout or other output;
(f) take any document or output referred to in paragraph (c) or (e) for examination or copying;
(g) examine any substance found there and, for the purpose of analysis, take samples, as reasonably required; and
(h) seize and detain, in accordance with Part IV of the Act, any substance found there, if the inspector believes, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary.
(2) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-place without the consent of an occupant of the dwelling-place.
(3) An inspector who seizes marihuana shall take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to give to the owner or other person in charge of the place where the seizure occurred notice of the seizure and of the location where the seized marihuana is being kept or stored.
(4) If an inspector determines that the detention of marihuana seized under paragraph (1)(h) is no longer necessary to ensure compliance with these Regulations, the inspector shall notify in writing the owner or other person in charge of the place where the seizure occurred of that determination and, on being issued a receipt for the marihuana, shall return it to that person.

SOR/2007-207, s. 19.

 

[mr noodles]

I just don't see it happening, politicians can try and pass bills, but it is the courts that uphold the laws, and the court has spoken several times. We are actually moving in the entire opposite direction, as HC was told by the supreme court that if they do not majorily overhaul their restrictions then all of the resctrictions will be null and void, meaning that courts in Canada will not prosecute anyone charged by HC for violating HC's rules, so basically it that happened, medical exemptees would have no regulations at all, including plant numbers and the amount of patients a grower can produce for, it basically takes Marijuana laws off the books for exemptees. I can tell you HC can not allow that to happen and as such are in the process right now of revamping a lot of there policies, such as the amount of people a DG can grow for.

So basically we have already reached a point of no return with our federal program. HC just had to change the 1 patient per DG policy as that is what started the court cases. The only allowed 1 extra patient per DG which we feel is a mockary of the Supreme Court decision and we as exemptees have already taken HC back to court to reveal this mockary, this is currently in progress.

the conservatives approach will be this one : they will act no matter and cut heads......and then they will let the peoples go in court but it take time and a court decision to stop the madness will take a long time to come .

how long it take to have a court decision that stated the dg situation was a against the law ?...long very long...years and years

you know why they are going to do it that way ?

they know they will be voted out of ottawa before legal action can take place and they will get satisfaction . all they want is a pure carnage legal or not .

i agree with you on everything but the conservatives are really obsessed about the mmar . they know they cant end it without a shitload of legal action that will reverse their move ...all they want is to trow a huge rock in a window in order to break it beyond repair . and it dump the od to the next gov ...but while that time the mmar patient are at fucking risk and harassment already started , some fire dept where informed of certain legal grower ???? they leak names and addresses all over the place...last thing i want is my local fire dept because its voluntary crew and the 3/4 are crook and dope dealers you cant trust ...security issue when you became the talk of a small town/village ...it stink and it will stink more if the conservatives remain in power

dont believe me but can you trust the conservatives ?