“Efficient? Currently, the authorities cannot explain certain official statistics including the many deaths by COVID in doubly or triply vaccinated people, sudden deaths in athletes as well as excess mortality statistics; this raises legitimate questions. Has the effectiveness of “vaccines” in healthy people really been demonstrated?
It is important to mention that novel, experimental, and mRNA vaccines, whose risk/benefit profile is unfavorable for young people and children in good health, benefit from a marketing authorization under a decree of emergency, even though there has never been an emergency in the pediatric population.”
The open letter is specifically addressed to Dr. Luc Boileau (public health director), Dr. Mauril Gaudreault (President of the Quebec college of physicians), and Dr. Marie-Claude Roy (President of the Quebec association of pediatricians) and was signed by 19 medical doctors, researchers, and pharmacists.
The letter was produced in collaboration with Réinfo Covid Québec, an arm of an international collective of 4,000 doctors and 80,000 members.
The group describes itself as a collective of caregivers, doctors and citizens gathered around an idea: the need for a fair and proportionate health policy in Quebec and elsewhere in the world.
In short, the Quebec chapter of the collective aims to provide a unified voice for doctors, health care professionals, and citizens to express their concerns and views regarding the Covid-19 pandemic health measures adopted in the province and its consequences – many of which they feel aren’t being equally shared and honestly discussed by traditional media and health authorities.
Though the open letter is quite lengthy and detailed, here are some of the principal contentions held therein [Google translated from French]:
“The physician’s personal and unavoidable duty, enshrined in his code of ethics, and from which he cannot escape, requires him to ensure that free and informed consent is obtained from the patient.”
“Free means without threat or constraint and, in the case of an investigational pharmaceutical product, without any promotion.”
“Informed means that the patient receives truthful, factual, complete and clearly expressed information.”
“An experimental product of gene manipulation was presented as a “vaccine like any other”. This product has been presented as a “safe and effective vaccine”.
“If we seek the support of the institutions that are the Public Health Department and the College of Physicians of Quebec (CMQ), it is in order to allow parents in Quebec to make free and informed decisions; decisions which, it should be mentioned, are irreversible.”
“Complete information, which includes all the dangers of a pharmaceutical product, is an unavoidable ethical obligation. What we have found as information communicated to parents in the context of anti-covid vaccines is ethically and scientifically insufficient, hence this text, which aims to better inform them.”
“Censorship that deprives parents of information essential to informed decision-making is unacceptable.”
“This text will also be sent to the media. Journalists or “decryptors” may want to comment on this information. They are free to do so. However, we ask them to disclose their sources and their possible conflicts of interest and to demand the same from all specialists they call to speak publicly as required by the journalistic code of ethics. Nothing less than the lives and health of children in Quebec are at stake.”
“Obligation to inform, Informed consent: Before prescribing or giving a treatment or a drug, the doctor, the government, or Public Health, in this case, has an ethical and legal obligation to provide the person with all the information relating to the product concerned. This is an unavoidable duty of physicians and it is also a legal obligation enshrined in the Civil Code of Quebec, articles 10 to 25. This obligation is inspired by the principle of “inviolability of the person” and his “right to the truth”.
“Freedom of choice: The person must have complete freedom to accept or refuse any pharmaceutical product without being rewarded or penalized for their choice. This is true for both adults and children.[1] As the gene vaccine against COVID-19 is an unlicensed experimental product authorized under the guise of public health emergency and which, moreover, has not been adequately tested in animals, there should be no promotion of this product, and, above all, there should be no adverse consequences for anyone who refuses. No pressure should be exerted on the person.[2] (See section 9).”
“Informed choice: no information should be hidden: For the choice to be informed, all available information (potential advantages and disadvantages, risks, uncertainties) must be provided and transmitted in understandable language. However, the highest authorities (Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC) have affirmed that the information on the gene vaccine cannot all be disclosed. In addition, the manufacturers of mRNA injections still refuse, even if their products are deployed on a global scale, to reveal the exact composition alleging that it is a trade secret. The authorities concerned, the World Health Organization, Public Health of Quebec, Health Canada, the College of Physicians of Quebec (CMQ), our governments (federal and provincial) have not required pharmaceutical companies to disclose the exact composition of their products. Consequently, it is impossible to obtain truly informed consent, which contravenes the fundamental principles of the CMQ.”
“Parent Consent and Responsibilities: Never has an experimental product been administered to human beings without full animal testing since the tragic drugs thalidomide[3] and DES[4] administered to pregnant women.”
“Children are not able to understand the information transmitted for consent to be considered truly “informed”. Thus, the parent who gives his authorization on behalf of his child must understand
1. that it is an irreversible intervention whose short and medium-term consequences are unknown and often underestimated, and whose long-term repercussions (including the risk of infertility) are unknown due to the absence of hindsight;
2. that he makes a decision on behalf of his child, considered incapable of deciding for himself, and that this is a long-term responsibility;
3. that this mRNA injection is a product that has never been used on a large scale in humans and is totally different from all the vaccines we have been used to. It is false to claim that this injection is a “vaccine like the others”.
“Risk/benefit balance: One must always ask whether the product has more advantages or more disadvantages (risks). We must also take into account the age and particularities of the child concerned. The studies carried out on children by the manufacturers did not meet the minimum criteria of validity (necessity, efficacy, and safety). These studies are scientifically insufficient and unsatisfactory. They have nevertheless been accepted by the FDA and by Health Canada. First of all, you have to know that the vast majority of children have already acquired a natural immunity against COVID-19 and then that children are very rarely seriously affected by the disease. In addition, it is now recognized by the CDC, since August 6, 2021, that this vaccination does not prevent either contracting the disease or transmitting it.”
“The benefits of this product for our children have not been satisfactorily explained, let alone demonstrated, by Public Health or the Government of Quebec. There are therefore unproven benefits, but the risks are indisputable and sometimes irremediable, thus subjecting children to unnecessary and unjustified danger.”
“Product not tested on animals? For a drug product to be approved, it must first have been tested in animals (mice, rats, and rabbits of both sexes and pregnant animals). In the climate of urgency surrounding this pandemic and in the rush to manufacture a “vaccine”, the manufacturer considerably shortened the crucial stage of animal testing, which would have taken several years for all phases to be completed. Complete studies of bio-distribution and toxicity normally required have also been neglected. The disastrous examples above of Thalidomide and DES causing fetal malformations, infertility, and vaginal cancers should have prompted us to be more cautious. It is important to mention that novel, experimental, and mRNA vaccines, whose risk/benefit profile is unfavorable for young people and children in good health, benefit from a marketing authorization under a decree of emergency, even though there has never been an emergency in the pediatric population.”
“Efficient? Currently, the authorities cannot explain certain official statistics including the many deaths by COVID in doubly or triply vaccinated people, sudden deaths in athletes as well as excess mortality statistics; this raises legitimate questions. Has the effectiveness of “vaccines” in healthy people really been demonstrated? [8]”
“Ethics: vaccinating children to protect adults??? The INSPQ affirms in its report intended for the Quebec government that it can be ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly and vulnerable. This logic of the INSPQ is all the more questionable as:
(1) It is not children who transmit COVID to the elderly, but adults who transmit it to children.
(2) “Vaccination” does not prevent either contracting the disease or transmitting it, and does so with the same intensity.”
“As a conclusion: We have attached ourselves to the obligation of truth and to the nature and extent of the information which must be transmitted to parents and which is essential for an informed decision-making concerning the inoculation of their child with an experimental product based on messenger RNA.”
“On the other hand, we believe that the Collège des médecins du Québec and the Direction de la santé publique could facilitate more informed decision-making by producing a document that is neither promotional nor propagandistic and which would include the information contained in the current.”
“In short, we, the signatories, are asking our indispensable regulatory institutions, the Direction de la santé publique and the Collège des médecins du Québec, to put science back on the agenda regarding the vaccination of children.”
“This also constitutes a formal notice in compliance with article 39 of the code of ethics of physicians concerning the reporting of a situation that endangers the population, in this case, the children of Quebec. If the above is consistent, a complete and immediate ban on the vaccination of children in Quebec against COVID-19 is necessary, if only by virtue of the precautionary principle (“First, do no harm” ).”
Verifying some claims made by the group
While it would be too lengthy to verify all of the claims found in the contentions enumerated above, some are worth checking.
Firstly, the group claims that vaccines should not be promoted since they were not fully tested on animals.
If we look at the information on the Quebec Health website, we can notice the following in the section Safety of the vaccines:
Previous versions (such as that of Oct. 29, 2021) somewhat varied and used to include a hyperlink pointing to the page that describes all the steps in the vaccine development process, including conducting preclinical studies in animals.
While it remains unclear why Quebec Health removed the link to the Vaccine development process page, the current page does state that they “have gone through all the necessary steps prior to approval” which remains disputable, given insufficient testing on animals.
As for the legality in promoting the vaccines, the group cited Section 9 of the Canadian Food and Drugs Act which states:
“9 (1) No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any drug in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety.”
Advertising the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a manner that suggests it has met “the same quality and safety standards as any other vaccine used in Canada” is highly questionable since it was not fully tested on animals, it was hurriedly released and administered under an emergency directive and was as an experimental product of gene manipulation very different from conventional vaccines.
One of the other key contentions of the group was that the health authorities do not meet required ethical standards specifically with regards to the completeness of information communicated to parents, that they fail in their obligation to provide informed consent, and that the public health authority, the INSPQ, had asserted it an ethical justification to vaccinate children in order to protect the elderly and vulnerable.
Moreover, they stress that complete information should include the dangers and risks of the vaccine, but parents are not informed of all of these due to censorship. And consequently, it deprives them of making an informed decision.
Informed consent is a complex concept with many norms and standards to follow as well as relevant laws which are well beyond the scope of this article. Notwithstanding, the claim that the health authority advocated to the Quebec government the advantages of vaccinating children to protect more vulnerable groups is easily verifiable.
Vaccination of children raises certain questions of ethics that have been discussed in detail in the notice for vaccination against COVID-19 of children aged 5 to 11 years(6).
Specifically for young children, remember the issues related to non-maleficence: given that the anticipated benefits of youth vaccination children are less than for other groups age, the individual risks must be low and the vaccination must have an excellent safety profile.
The possible negative impacts of vaccination against COVID-19 on the offer and acceptability of other routine vaccines should also be minimized, in order to respect the principle of non-maleficence.
Moreover, from a utilitarian point of view, the principle of solidarity can make it possible to ethically justify the vaccination of young children in the context of an uncertain benefit/risk ratio at the individual level, especially if the vaccination of young children offers societal benefits (for example, if vaccination protects other people more vulnerable). It could also allow parents who identify their child at risk of developing complications as a result of an infection to SARS-CoV-2 to benefit from this strategy preventative, should it become offered or recommended.”
The key passage here is
“Moreover, from a utilitarian point of view, the principle of solidarity can make it possible to ethically justify the vaccination of young children in the context of an uncertain benefit/risk ratio at the individual level, especially if the vaccination of young children offers societal benefits (for example, if vaccination protects other people more vulnerable)”.
It is clearly stated that the health authority, the INSPQ, is indeed suggesting vaccinating children in order to protect more vulnerable groups of society.
While the group has raised many important questions surrounding the numerous and contentious issues raised in their open letter, it remains to be seen if any of the targeted health authorities will reply, as they seldom do.
The author of this article has contacted Réinfo Covid Québec to inquire as to whether they have received any response from any of the three health authorities to whom they have addressed the letter but has not received a reply as of publication time. Should they respond, a note will be added in the comments section for this article.
At the very least, the group of doctors and healthcare professionals who penned this open letter have provided the public in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada with a lot to contemplate.
“These increases are all the more shocking because our nurses, clerks, and other professionals face very difficult working conditions, while our patients live with the lack of access to required services because of the drastic cuts in recent years.”
Hundreds of doctors in Quebec, Canada are protesting their own proposed pay raise, saying the money would be better spent compensating underpaid nurses and other healthcare workers and improving patient care. (Photo: John Normile/Getty Images)
Hundreds of doctors in Quebec, Canada are asking the Ministry of Health to cancel a proposed pay raise it wants to give them, imploring the government to instead redirect the funds to other healthcare workers and patient care in the province.
“We, Quebec doctors who believe in a strong public system, oppose the recent salary increases negotiated by our medical federations,” wrote Médecins Québécois Pour le Régime Public (MQRP), in a letter signed by nearly 800 physicians. “We, Quebec doctors, are asking that the salary increases granted to physicians be canceled and that the resources of the system be better distributed for the good of healthcare workers.”
“If you ask physicians in the street, most will tell you that they would rather have more support and have a good working environment and have other professionals to refer their patients to, rather than having more money.” —Isabelle Leblanc, MQRPQuebec’s healthcare system, administered by the province’s Ministry of Health, has suffered “drastic cuts” recently, note the doctors, which they say should be reversed with the funds the government plans to use for raises.
The province’s 20,000 doctors make an average of $198,000 to $314,000, and the government has proposed annual raises of 1.4 to 1.8 percent, costing Quebec about $1.2 billion over the next five years.
“These increases are all the more shocking because our nurses, clerks, and other professionals face very difficult working conditions, while our patients live with the lack of access to required services because of the drastic cuts in recent years,” wrote the MQRP.
The funding cuts are the result of austerity measures taken by the province’s health minister, Gaetan Barrette. In February, nurses staged a sit-in at a hospital in the Montreal suburb of Terrebonne to denounce overwork, echoing the concerns of Emilie Ricard, a young nurse who posted a photo of herself in tears and looking exhausted after working a night shift in which she alone cared for more than 70 patients. Nurses’ unions say funding cuts have reduced the number of full-time positions available.
The cuts also appear to have caused the quality of patient care to suffer. Quebec’s health and welfare commissioner found in 2016 that the province had the longest emergency room wait times in the West, with 35 percent of patients waiting five hours or more for care.
“If you ask physicians in the street, most will tell you that they would rather have more support and have a good working environment and have other professionals to refer their patients to, rather than having more money,” Isabelle Leblanc, the president of MQRP, told the Guardian.
The new guaranteed minimum income is part of a $3-billion anti-poverty plan announced Sunday. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The Quebec government has taken a “positive first step” toward a universal basic income with its commitment to provide a set amount of money to those unable to work, says a proponent of the idea.
“I think it’s a move in the right direction,” said Jonathan Brun, co-founder of Revenu de base Québec.
It also, Brun said, “puts the terminology square and centre within government policy.”
The new measure is part of a larger $3-billion anti-poverty plan announced Sunday. An estimated 84,000 Quebecers would qualify for the minimum income, largely those with physical and intellectual disabilities.
By next year, they will see their government assistance increased by at least $73 per month. That figure will reach $440 per month by 2023, bringing their annual guaranteed minimum income to $18,029.
Ideally, Brun’s group would have liked the Liberal government to have gone farther, switching many of its welfare programs to a negative income tax that would provide low-income earners with supplemental pay from the government.
He said the new measure, along with the Old Age Security pension provided by the federal government, means two of the most vulnerable segments of the population will receive a guaranteed income in Quebec.
“Hopefully, over time, we’ll add a basic income for others in our society,” he said, adding that, realistically, a more radical move by the Liberals was unlikely less than a year before the next provincial election.
Limited in scope
Other supporters of a universal basic income — which guarantees everyone has enough money to meet their basic needs, regardless of work status — argue the province’s plan doesn’t go far enough.
Karl Widerquist, an associate professor at Georgetown University-Qatar, said the advantage of a true universal basic income is there is no judgment or red tape involved in assessing who is eligible.
The measure being implemented in Quebec is “limiting,” he said, and isn’t necessarily a stepping stone toward something more ambitious.
The plan was announced by Employment Minister François Blais, who championed the notion of a universal basic income before entering politics.
The former academic makes an impassioned case for the policy in his 2001 book, Ending Poverty: A Basic Income for All Canadians, describing it as a politically fraught proposal that would require “a huge effort both morally and intellectually” to implement.
Employment Minister François Blais made the case for the idea in his 2001 book, Ending Poverty: A Basic Income for All Canadians. (Lorimer )
“It is a simple yet radical idea for changing our world and allowing a better life for those who truly need it,” Blais wrote in his book. “It proposes daring solutions to neglected yet fundamental problems.”
The new measure isn’t quite daring enough, in the view of several anti-poverty groups. Yann Tremblay-Marcotte, a spokesperson for the Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec, said it will foster divisions between low-income Quebecers who are eligible and those who are not.
“In his approach, Minister Blais seems to believe that people on social assistance who have no recognized severe limitations do not deserve to improve their conditions,” Tremblay-Marcotte said.
Serge Petitclerc, the spokesperson for the Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté, echoed that view, saying the province isn’t “tackling other categories of people in social need or people living in poverty.”
What will we learn?
The idea of a universal basic income, while rarely implemented, has supporters on all sides of the political spectrum.
Proponents on the left argue it represents an opportunity for greater redistribution of wealth, while those on the right see it as a chance to cut back on red tape and give individuals more control over their own lives.
Ontario is testing out a variation of the idea, with 4,000 low-income earners in three communities being given a basic annual income of $17,000.
Finland is also experimenting. A total of 2,000 citizens who receive unemployment benefits will get 560 euros ($782 Canadian) a month over the two-year trial.
The anti-poverty plan was announced by Employment Minister François Blais, who championed the notion of a universal basic income before entering politics. (Jacques Boissinot/Canadian Press)
The new measure in Quebec will serve as a kind of pilot project in its own right, with a far greater sample size than those in Ontario and Finland, Brun said.
Social scientists will be able to use the data to analyze whether the guaranteed income produces benefits in other areas, and reduces the overall burden on the health system and social services.
Montreal and Quebec police aren’t scaling back cannabis-related charges as legalization looms
Marijuana possession charges are declining in most of Canada — but not in Quebec. (Graham Hughes/Canadian Press)
Marijuana charges are on the rise in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec, while in the rest of Canada cannabis-related charges are declining ahead of Ottawa’s plans to legalize the drug.
The number of cannabis-related charges has ebbed countrywide from last year, continuing a downward trend since a peak in 2011.
For Canadians older than 12, 17,700 were charged with possession last year, according to police-reported statistics released by Statistics Canada. This is down from 21,300 in 2015.
More serious charges of trafficking were also down, while production and importation charges remained flat but relatively low.
This trend was observed across most provinces, and in many of them, the rate of charges is the lowest on record.
But Montreal and other Quebec cities have been bucking the trend. Charges for possession have been slowly going up since 1998, and are virtually unchanged from 2015.
Quebec apprehensive of legalization
Eric Sutton, a criminal defence lawyer in Montreal, said the disparity surprised him, but he has noticed concerns of the medical community and other lobby groups being aired in Quebec media more than elsewhere in the country.
“In Quebec, there has been a fairly hot debate, and that may have had an effect on policing and the attitude of prosecutors,” Sutton said. “Legalizing something doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s a legal decision, not a moral decision.”
Sutton said prosecutors usually take into account whether someone has a prior criminal record, as well as other factors that could determine whether charges are pursued or not.
He said the push to legalize “reflects an understanding that so many people use marijuana and, like it or not, it’s probably here to stay.”
In 2016, an average of 73 Montrealers per 100,000 people charged for cannabis possession, and 76 in Quebec as a whole, while the Canadian rate was 56 per 100,000 people.
One of the most dramatic decreases was in Alberta.
Because the population in the territories is so low, the rates tend to skew higher. Here they are, in separate charts with a different scale. All have seen lower numbers.
The picture is more varied in metropolitan areas. While most police forces seem to be reducing pot-related enforcement that leads to charges, some forces are more ambitious than others.
Halifax, Winnipeg, Calgary, Windsor, Ont., and Barrie, Ont., have changed the least from 2015 in the number of charges.
Police in Canada reallocating resources
In other police districts, the abating of charges may be a question of resources and capacity, according to the president of the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis .
He said police forces haven’t targeted simple possession “for years now.”
“The focus is on high-level trafficking, organized crime, and other related activities that are more serious and have a bigger impact on the community,” Stamatakis said.
“I would anticipate that police forces are redirecting priorities on the basis that marijuana will become legal in the near future.”
It’s unclear whether Montreal police are doing that or not.
“There’s a much bigger market here, there’s much more activity, more grow-ops, just as a percentage of criminality,” said Montreal Coun. Alex Norris, speculating on what could cause the discrepancy, which he said was interesting.
Norris is part of Montreal’s public safety commission and said he planned to ask police Chief Philippe Pichet or senior staff on the force about it at the commission’s next meeting.
‘A disappointing trend’ in Quebec
Marc-Boris St-Maurice, a longtime advocate of legalization and the head of the Montreal Compassion Centre, said it’s a disappointing trend.
“It would be nice if there could be a bit more tolerance towards people who are using marijuana, given that legalization is just around the corner,” St-Maurice said.
He said provincial leadership “is a lot more afraid of marijuana in Quebec.… We think we’re all so open, but I guess these numbers here show that it’s not always the case.”
Historically, Quebec police appear to have been more tolerant of cannabis possession than other provinces. In 1998, there was an average of 53 people charged with possession per 100,000 in the province. Canada’s rate at the time was 76.
The rate in Quebec has risen ever since, following the Canadian trend, but still registering lower every year until now.
Individuals who abuse animals and their rights in Quebec could face up to 18 months in prison.
Credit: abc11.com
The Canadian province of Quebec used to be regarded as a haven for puppy mills, but that has since changed. In a bill tabled in Quebec in 2015, animals are now considered “sentient beings” rather than property. The legislation states:
“Animals are not things. They are sentient beings and have biological needs.”
According to CBC News, Agriculture Minister Pierre Paradis was responsible for proposing the bill. He – along with many other animal rights activists – is inspired to quell the injustices being done against all kinds of species around the world.
Those who abuse animals and their needs may be fined unto $250,000. And, up to 18 months in prison is a possibility for repeat offenders.
Paradis told the press that Quebec’s new legislation would put it in line with the other provinces in Canada, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. He also said he wants to see animals “treated with dignity as much as possible” it doesn’t matter what animal.”
It is important to note that the legislation applies to ALL domesticated and farm animals and certain wild animals. That’s right, even abusing a goldfish will warrant a reprimand. Inspectors now have increased power to demand to see if an animal is being cared for properly as long as they invoke a “reasonable cause.” In order to enter a home and seize animals, however, they must provide a warrant.
Paradis has a simple solution to avoiding the harsh consequences of abusing animals, however. He states:
“If you have a goldfish you have to take care of it. Don’t get a goldfish if you don’t want to take care of it.”
Is this a sign that humans are evolving in consciousness and learning to treat other beings with respect?
Comment: To all the simpleton coppers out there: Give it up. The people have spoken. Marijuana is almost decriminalized in Canada. Why do you persist in enforcing laws that Canadians do not want or respect?
Perhaps we should set up a hot line where ordinary Canadians could document the crimes committed by police officers on a daily basis. We don’t want to do that, but if you keep on going after pot users, (hear me Nanaimo RCMP troglodytes?), we shall have no choice but to begin the process of documenting police crimes across the country. Hint: coppers have the highest rates of domestic abuse, alcoholism and suicide in the overall population. Then we’ll proceed with planting false evidence, perjury, and just being plain stupid. We don’t have to cater to you. We are your bosses, get it? You work for us. Don’t like it? Quit your job and do something useful for a change. Or move to the Barbaric State of Dumbmerica, you’ll fit right in.
For example, all coppers have their favorite bars. Here they even have their own private club. It’s just a matter of placing a volunteer citizen outside their drinking hole and documenting the evidence. It won’t take long. They are human, just like the rest of us. If they don’t stop harassing pot users, I suggest we turn the heat on them by making them accountable for their own behavior.
Gratuitous silly pic for no reason except it has some coppers in it.
Judge Pierre Chevalier just issued a stunning statement on marijuana prohibition. He said in unequivocal terms, that a man brought before him for the “crime” of growing 30 marijuana plants at his home, should face no more than $1.30 fine. The ruling was symbolic, but it went beyond the mere gesture when the judge said point blank that the rules prohibiting […]
Judge Pierre Chevalier just issued a stunning statement on marijuana prohibition. He said in unequivocal terms, that a man brought before him for the “crime” of growing 30 marijuana plants at his home, should face no more than $1.30 fine.
The ruling was symbolic, but it went beyond the mere gesture when the judge said point blank that the rules prohibiting the man’s action are “obsolete” and “ridiculous.”
Mario Larouche, 46, had been facing possession charges for the 30 marijuana plants kept at home.
The Canadian judge’s ruling was in line with what the new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his party have said about legalizing marijuana.
The Quebec judge said this about it all:
We are in a society where people are accused of possession and use of marijuana while more than half the population has already consumed. These are laws that are obsolete and ridiculous. When one is in the presence of laws which would have more than half of the population has a criminal record in Canada… And probably most Crown Attorneys and defense, and perhaps judges, but I will not comment on it.
Then Judge Chevalier explained that “46 year old Mario Larouche had tried numerous times to get a prescription for medical marijuana, unsuccessfully”
There are “so few doctors are willing to prescribe marijuana for pain relief, despite the mountains of evidence proving its effectiveness without the disastrous side effects of prescription painkillers. This forced Mr. Larouche to break the law in order to treat his pain.”
Chevalier said the system itself is broken.
“Monsieur is in a broken system where it does not give people access to a natural medicine that goes back centuries, millennia.”
Do you agree? If you want to see more judges TAKE A STAND like this, then help SPREAD THE WORD!
Here’s some French Canadian humor to warm up this short cold Winter day.
A presentation of JustForLaughsTV, the official Just For Laughs Gags YouTube channel. Home of the funniest, greatest, most amazing, most hilarious, win filled, comedy galore, hidden camera pranks in the world!
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone