安大略省法院确认医用大麻法规违宪。

Gordon Cruess
{"title":"安大略省法院确认医用大麻法规违宪。","authors":"Gordon Cruess","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On 7 October 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Hitzig, which found that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) represented an unconstitutional barrier to accessing a legal supply of marijuana for persons with a recognized medical need. The Court of Appeal tailored its remedial order by striking down the second specialist test required for certain applicants, and eliminating the unconstitutional eligibility and supply provisions, rather than declaring unconstitutional the entire MMAR as the lower court had done. The court's declaration was made effective immediately, in order to maintain the prohibition for non-medicinal possession of marijuana under section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), and to constitutionalize the medical exemption for marijuana possession created under the MMAR.</p>","PeriodicalId":83647,"journal":{"name":"Canadian HIV/AIDS policy & law review","volume":"8 3","pages":"53-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ontario court affirms that medical marijuana regulations are unconstitutional.\",\"authors\":\"Gordon Cruess\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>On 7 October 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Hitzig, which found that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) represented an unconstitutional barrier to accessing a legal supply of marijuana for persons with a recognized medical need. The Court of Appeal tailored its remedial order by striking down the second specialist test required for certain applicants, and eliminating the unconstitutional eligibility and supply provisions, rather than declaring unconstitutional the entire MMAR as the lower court had done. The court's declaration was made effective immediately, in order to maintain the prohibition for non-medicinal possession of marijuana under section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), and to constitutionalize the medical exemption for marijuana possession created under the MMAR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":83647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian HIV/AIDS policy & law review\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"53-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian HIV/AIDS policy & law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian HIV/AIDS policy & law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2003年10月7日,安大略上诉法院维持了安大略高等法院在希齐格案中的判决,该判决认为,《大麻医疗获取条例》对有公认医疗需要的人获得合法供应的大麻构成违宪障碍。上诉法院对其补救令进行了调整,取消了对某些申请人所要求的第二次专家测试,并取消了违宪的资格和供应条款,而不是像下级法院那样宣布整个《军事和刑事诉讼法》违宪。法院的声明立即生效,以维持《受管制药物和物质法》(CDSA)第4条对非药用大麻的禁止,并将《毒品和物质法》规定的医用大麻豁免纳入宪法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ontario court affirms that medical marijuana regulations are unconstitutional.

On 7 October 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Hitzig, which found that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) represented an unconstitutional barrier to accessing a legal supply of marijuana for persons with a recognized medical need. The Court of Appeal tailored its remedial order by striking down the second specialist test required for certain applicants, and eliminating the unconstitutional eligibility and supply provisions, rather than declaring unconstitutional the entire MMAR as the lower court had done. The court's declaration was made effective immediately, in order to maintain the prohibition for non-medicinal possession of marijuana under section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), and to constitutionalize the medical exemption for marijuana possession created under the MMAR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信