StoneMtn

Cool! Thanks Lurker. I plan to resume my search for that one. I had no idea it was only an EP. (Love those Moistboyz....)

hahahahaha....

hot and black!

I like my men like I like my coffee...

Bottom line: I love Ween.

Well said!

As you guys are most likely aware, the above is the name of the "other" Ween, when they call themselves the Moistboyz and sing about extra-offensive material. Personally, I absolutely love the Moistboyz, but I've only ever been able to get my hands on two CDs, that are called "II" and "III". This leads me to believe that there is a Moistboyz album out there called "I".

Anyone know if that is even true? Anyone have that disc?

Maybe I'll go as a 'hippy'. Anybody got any old hippy gear laying around?

[color:"purple"]Are you kidding? What kind of loser would ever have dressed like that?

I already recommended a couple of movies, but I can also recommend a cool Canadian site devoted exclusively to Hallowe'en:

www.pumpkinhead.ca

I hate to continue to muddy the waters, but I don't think that's exactly right either. I think:

1. The legislature has passed regulations allowing for possession of medical pot.

2. Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld those regulations insofar as they exempt people from certain sections of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

3. Health Canada is currently formulating how to implement the above.

4. It would only be after Health Canada does its job that we could, possibly, then have a further court battle over that.

(I think.)

Well, Mr. Tonin, you are certainly taxing my non-criminal-defence-lawyer mind this morning!

Due to my burning curiosity, though, I went right to the source. John Conroy is the leading criminal defence lawyer in Canada on this issue, and a veritable genius at that. I went to his site, and this is a cut-and-paste of his answer to your question:

Authorization to Possess

- An authorization to possess marihuana for medical purposes will be issued by Health Canada. The application requirements to obtain an authorization to possess will depend on the category under which the request is made. The requirements will range from minimum in the case of terminal illness situations to more substantive for non-terminal illness cases where little or no conclusive scientific evidence exists.

- All applications will have to be submitted by a medical practitioner on behalf of the patient. Depending on the category under which the application is being made, support from a medical specialist may be required. The proposed regulations set out three categories.

- Category 1 is for patients who have terminal illnesses with a prognosis of death within 12 months. In this situation, the proposed Regulations provide a less demanding process to obtain the authorization to possess because the risk of long term harm is not present. The Regulations will allow for one renewal under this category should the prognosis be inaccurate. Any subsequent renewals would have to be made under another category.

- Category 2 is for patients who suffer from specific symptoms associated with some serious medical conditions (examples include weight loss in patients with AIDS/HIV in a non-terminal situation; persistent muscle spasms in multiple sclerosis). These symptoms are found in a schedule to the Regulations. Symptoms associated with serious medical conditions in this category have been selected based on the outcome or conclusions of scientific and medical reports from medical organizations that performed a review of available scientific literature (for example the IOM report previously mentioned). These reports confirm the existence of a certain amount of inconclusive scientific evidence to indicate a potential benefit but raise caution on the known risks of using a smoked form, particularly with respect to long term use. Seizures associated with epilepsy have been added to the list of symptoms in the schedule to the Regulations in view of the findings in the Parker case. Though the application under this category may be submitted by a general practitioner, specific statements from a medical specialist are required in support of the application. These statements include, among other things, that conventional treatments have been tried or at least considered and found not medically appropriate for the reasons outlined in the Regulations.

- Category 3 is for patients who have symptoms associated with medical conditions other than those in the other two categories. For this category, although the application may be submitted by a general practitioner, specific statements from two medical specialists are required in support of the application. This is necessary since less conclusive scientific evidence exists supporting the use of marihuana in the treatment of symptoms associated with medical conditions not included in Category 2. All conventional therapies should have been tried or at least considered and found not medically appropriate for the reasons outlined in the Regulations. The list of therapies tried or considered will have to be submitted with the reasons why they were found medically inappropriate.

- For all three categories, the authorization to possess marihuana for a medical purpose will specify a maximum quantity of marihuana equal to a 30-day treatment supply at any given time. Quantity of supply will be continuously refurbished by quantities produced under the licence to produce. The daily dosage that determines the 30-day treatment supply is provided by the physician and will be subject to additional requirements when proposed dosage exceeds a quantity of 5 grams per day.

I highly recommend you check out his site, at http://www.johnconroy.com, or specifically at http://www.johnconroy.com/analysis.html

Presuming his site is up to date, which I suspect that it is, the law is "in flux" meaning that you are essentially right. In my view, if you were busted for medical marijuana right now, it would be difficult to point to the exact authority that allows you to possess it, as Health Canada is yet to make its authorization. That being said, Courts do take into consideration that the law is in flux, and I suspect that what would likely occur is, either, a "stay of proceedings" (meaning that the matter is dismissed for the moment, but the Crown is welcome to resurrect the charges at a later date, presumably when the law is settled. Usually, though, a stay ends up being a "final disposition" of the matter, practically speaking) or an adjournment until such time as the law is settled, or even a dismissal of all charges in light of the fact that the law is "in flux". Clear as mud?

... and once again (the old cover-my-ass comment) I'm not a criminal defence lawyer. The above is not legal advice on any specific set of facts, and if you need actual legal advice on this issue I recommend contacting a criminal defence lawyer in your own provincial jurisdiction.

I had to deal with this once, when my cat was sprayed. Apparently the reason people use tomato juice is that there is a small amount of some chemical in it that counteracts the chemical-smell from skunks. You should not use tomato juice, though, because there is not that much of that chemical in there and, of course, it stains.

Veterinary clinics sell a product that is essentially the anti-skunk-smell-chemical, mixed with a nice fragrance. I think the one I bought was called "Skunk Off". It worked really well.

Weezy, as you are in Vancouver, I highly recommend you call my favourite veterinarian, Dr. Noel Clancy at the Granville Island Veterinary Clinic. He'll set you up. Really good guy, and quite young too.

I agree with #s 1 and 2. I have no idea about #3.

As well, as I stated above, there is a specific exemption from the prohibition laws for medicinal marijuana use, under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227, ss. 4(2)©, 5, 5(1)(e), 6, 6(1), 6(2), 6(3), 6(3)(, 6(4), 7, 9, 11, 12, 23, 34(2), 41(, 51, 54, 70. (For legal purposes, for some odd reason, it is alwyas spelled 'marihuana'.) This means that medical marijuana is supposed to be made available to those who are prescribed it. (Practically speaking, if I'm not mistaken, we do not yet have any sort of government-sanctioned system to implement this.)

Okay Mark, this seems to be the latest word from the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following is a summary of the most recent judgment in Canada on this issue:

Case Name:

Hitzig v. Canada

Between

Warren Hitzig, Alison Myrden, Mary-Lynne Chamney, Catherine

Devries, Jari Dvorak, Stephen Van de Kemp, Deborah Anne

Stultz-Giffin and Marco Renda, respondents/appellants in

cross-appeal, and

Her Majesty the Queen, appellant/respondent in cross-appeal

And between

Terrance Parker, appellant/respondent in cross-appeal, and

Her Majesty the Queen, respondent/appellant in cross-appeal

And between

John C. Turmel and Marc J.J. Paquette, appellants/respondents

in cross-appeal, and

Her Majesty the Queen, respondent/appellant in cross-appeal

[2003] O.J. No. 3873

[2003] C.C.S. No. 18870

Docket Nos. C39532, C39738 and C39740

Ontario Court of Appeal

Toronto, Ontario

Doherty, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.

Heard: July 29-31, 2003.

Judgment: October 7, 2003.

(183 paras.)

Civil rights — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Application, exceptions — Principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7.) — Denial of rights — Remedies, declaration of statute invalidity — Narcotic control — Cultivation — Licensing — Criteria — Possession — For medical purposes.

Appeal by Canada from a decision that the scheme for obtaining legal marijuana violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Cross-appeal by Hitzig and others from a decision that the eligibility requirements under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations did not violate the Charter. In 2000, the Court of Appeal held that section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which prohibited the possession of marihuana, was of no force or effect due to the absence of a constitutionally valid exemption for persons who required marihuana for medical purposes. Canada subsequently enacted the Regulations, which allowed specified persons to possess marijuana where they met certain criteria. Persons who fell under category 3 had to provide supporting documents by two medical specialists. Eligible persons could produce their own marihuana, or a designated person could produce it for them. The designated persons could not be remunerated and could not provide marijuana to more than one person. Hitzig and others applied for a declaration that the Regulations violated the Charter. The judge held that the scheme for obtaining the marihuana violated the Charter, but that the eligibility requirements did not.

HELD: Appeal dismissed, and cross-appeal allowed in part. The requirement for the second specialist for category 3 persons, and the prohibitions against payment and supplying marijuana to more than one person were declared to be invalid. The Regulations violated section 7 of the Charter by failing to effectively remove state barriers to a licit source of supply of marijuana to medical users. The requirement that category 3 applicants submit a report by a second specialist violated the right to fundamental justice, as it constituted an arbitrary barrier. The section 7 violations were not saved by section 1 of the Charter. There was no rational connection between the offending aspects of the Regulations and the government's objectives of better public health and safety and effective narcotic control. The remedy imposed was specifically targeted to the constitutional shortcomings of the Regulations. It was not appropriate to suspend the declarations of invalidity. Their effect was to impose a constitutionally valid exemption and to render the marihuana prohibition under section 4 of the Drug Act constitutionally valid and of full force and effect. As well, the immediate imposition of the order recognized the section 7 rights of the terminally ill persons to whom the exemption applied.

Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, ss. 1, 7, 9, 11(g), 11(h).

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, ss. 4, 5, 56.

Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.), 30 and 31 Vict., c. 3.

Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52, 52(1).

Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F.27, s. 2.

Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 870, s. C.08.010, C.08.011.

Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227, ss. 4(2)©, 5, 5(1)(e), 6, 6(1), 6(2), 6(3), 6(3)(, 6(4), 7, 9, 11, 12, 23, 34(2), 41(, 51, 54, 70.

Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1041.

Appeal From:

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Sidney N. Lederman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 9, 2003, reported at (2003), 171 C.C.C. (3d) 18.

My understanding of this summary is that anti-drug statutes in Canada are constitutionally valid, however, we now have regulations allowing for medicinal marijuana. For that reason, it would be unconstitutional to have other laws preventing someone from distributing medicinal marijuana. For that reason, this is an exemption from our marijuana-prohibition laws; especially in light of terminally ill people who require this medication.

I have not read the full judgment as it is very long, and I say again that I am not a criminal lawyer, so I defer to any "expert's" opinion as it may differ from mine. If you would like a copy of the full judgment, PM me, and I'll email it to you.

First: As I've said before but will say again, I am not a criminal lawyer, so I only know bits and pieces, but, I can say this:

The statute always was and continues to be the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The caselaw is all over the map, though, and depends what your issue is. Basically, though, it's still illegal to possess or traffick in it. As well, that prohibition is not found to be overly broad and thereby it was found to be constitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is caselaw saying neat stuff like you are not necessarily "impaired" just because you smoked pot, and other things. (By way of contrast, though, there is even an unfortunate judgment out of Quebec recently in which a judge gave a killer a light sentence because she found that pot, among other things, made him uncontrollably psychotic.)

Basically, as I said, it's all over the map. If you need to address a particular fact-pattern, though, just let me know what it is (you can PM if you want) and I'll see what I can dig up for you.

Edited by StoneMtN: I just re-read your post, and I now realize that you are talking specifically about medical pot, and that you want to know what sort of debates are currently ongoing. I would not likely be the best person to answer what is going on in debates right now, as that could likely be answered better by a marijuana-advocate, but I will pull some recent caselaw on the medical pot issue, and see if I can give you a reasoned answer later on.

I could make it simple, and say that I think they have only gotten better each year, and Quebec is their best album. That is sort of my answer.

I almost think, however, that "new evil vibe" by Instant Death (Ween's bassist) is up there with anything they have done. The best way I can describe it is 'death jazz'. Awesome.

awesome.

So, Chickenhead... I did a quick Google search out of curiosity, "Chickenhead Ottawa", and I think they may have last played in 2001. Anyway, there's lots to read about them, if you're interested. Great band, though! I believe they also did the odd Deep Purple song.

They probably don't play anymore. They called themselves "Vintage Black Sabbath".

Maybe he's part of the infamous, Ottawa-based Chickenhead!

An actual diplomat is the man number_2.

He has broad shoulders and wishes well for all of you.

His point is well taken

Skanktuarians are mistaken

For turning the Sanctuary into poo.

Why does this message board exist?

Not a simple question, but I persist

To question why.

The answer may lie

In music, our main common interest.

I enjoy hearing different points of view.

Even arguments; without personal attacks on you.

So lets move toward

Revitalizing this board

Talking; arguing; not as enemies, but as FRIENDS do.

My understanding (and I am no political scientist so I am open to being corrected) is that the reason we import from such countries as you have suggested is due to the low cost of their labour.

My cynical opinion, as a one-time philosophy student, is that multi-national and trans-national corporations go into less developed countries entirely for the purpose of exploiting a labour market that they could not possibly find in the west. In such markets they can employ adults at wages that would be criminal here, and children under circumstances that they could never be employed here. It also allows them to avoid environmental laws that exist in the west and which serve to increase cost, as we have pesky little situations in which companies are forced to dispose of waste in a safe manner and other things. There are also workplace safety issues, human rights, benefits, and other matters that we have here that serve to increase costs, that can be conveniently ignored in the developing world.

This, of course, allows those of us residing in this hemisphere the luxury of buying items at a fraction of the cost of what they would be if manufactured locally.

I leave it to you to decide how much, if any, of the above is appropriate for a 15 year old learning English, and I leave it to you to phrase it as you wish. I also welcome comments from anyone who feels they are more knowlegeable in these areas than I.

Just to clarify, I saw him in Ottawa long before 2001. I think it was like 1995 or 94 ... could that be right?

Wow!

Man, next year you and I have to get on this one. Seriously; if I forget, PM me on this in about 10 or 11 months and I am SO there with you!

TimmyB: You know the answer to that one. I would certainly give him another chance in that scenario, as I would already be there. I even sat through the Barenaked Ladies under similar circumstances (as you are aware).

I don't despise him, or anything, I just find him boring; but I really don't want to insult any one else's tastes, and I realize I'm in the minority on this. Again, I think I'm just missing the appeal. You guys know your tunes, without question, so I don't doubt that there is something to his music; but I'm not getting it.

That seems to be the usual sentiment; and as it usually comes from people whose musical opinions I very much respect I usually just leave the issue alone. I will continue to do so. For whatever reason, I'm just not getting the appeal of his music.

A vacation? Well, obviously ... Jimmy Buffett! (No one vacations like he does.)