TURMEL: Spottiswood's MedPot Expert Witness Report

[KingofthePaupers]

JCT: As Canada's most court-accredited expert witness in the
Mathematics of Gambling, I will use the facts provided by
the testimony of Mike's witnesses to give the expert opinion
that the tort caused to the patient by each flaw in the MMAR
reduces the chances of good health and survival thus
violating the Right to Life. Many other rights too but
that's the Biggie.

JOHN C. TURMEL: CURRICULUM VITAE

John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave.,
Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122,
Cell: 519-717-1012
Email: johnt...@yahoo.com
http://johnturmel.com
http://facebook.com/john.turmel
http://youtube.com/kingofthepaupers

http://johnturmel.com/gambler.htm details most of my
gambling career.

1974 at Ottawa: As an electrical engineering undergraduate
student at Carleton University, I received an A+ in the
first and only course of its kind in Canada, Math 69:140:
the Mathematics of Gambling, given by Carleton University
Mathematics Professor Walter Schneider, Ph.d. I got 100% in
Physics, an A+ in Fourth Year Electronic Engineering, while
the lesser grades in earlier years show the effect of too
much card-playing in the student lounge.

1975-8: I was the Teaching Assistant of the Mathematics of
Gambling course and became a professional gambler junketing
on over 50 5-day junkets to Las Vegas casinos.

In 1975, I ran the first university-student card-counting
team in Las Vegas with students from the Carleton gambling
course; a decade before the later more-celebrated university
teams.

1976 at Las Vegas: My Fourth Year Engineering Project titled
"A APL Computer Analysis of Canadian Stud" which was
presented to the Third Conference on Gambling at Ceasar's
Palace.

1977 at Ottawa: After eventually being barred in Las Vegas
as a too-successful Blackjack card-counter, with Blackjack
now beatable by skill like no-rake Poker, U-May-Bank
Blackjack should be legal like no-rake poker too and I
started running U-Bank Blackjack games until busted and
convicted.

In 1979, I first ran for Parliament to legalize gambling
though reprogramming our world's banks to run like poker
chips, interest-free, which became the main focus of my
Guinness Record 77 Elections Contested and 76 Elections
Lost, one called off, since then. "Super Loser," or "Winner
at the tables, loser at the polls" the media like joke.

1980s: I hosted very public Ottawa Regional Holdem Poker
tournaments which are completely legal as long the organizer
nets no profit after expenses!

1984: I was featured in the Anthology of Canadian
Canadian Characters and have been searchable as the "Great
Canadian Gambler" since then.

1989 at Ottawa: Ontario Justice James Fontana ruled the
Found-Ins charged at my game could not be guilty since U-
Bank Blackjack was a fair game! Once he had ruled they had
not been unfairly taken advantage of by the Keeper
possessing the bank all the time, Justice Lennox found I
could not have kept an illegal gaming house if I had no
extra advantage! So I was finally free to run U-Bank
Blackjack with no-rake-off poker.

1991 at Hull Quebec: I introduced Holdem Poker to Quebec at
my 7-table Casino Turmel on "Main Street" in Hull (4
Blackjack, 3 Poker) and hosted the First Canadian Open
Holdem Championship, and six more since then. "Operation
Blackjack" by the Quebec Police shut down Casino Turmel.

1992 at Ottawa: Back in Ontario where I'd been acquitted, I
introduced Holdem poker to Ontario at my 6-table (3
Blackjack, 3 Poker) Casino Turmel at Baxter Plaza in Ottawa.
When I was left alone, I moved to a bigger 28-table (21
Blackjack and 7 Poker) Casino Turmel at Topaz Plaza.

1993: The Ontario Provincial Police "Project Robin Hood"
raid shut down the Topaz Casino Turmel. I've submitted the
Project Robin Hood Raid to the Guinness Book of Records as
the biggest gambling house raid. In order to convict me
after I'd been formerly acquitted, expanded the meaning of a
word to convict winnings that had been formerly declared
legal. The new definition is now in the Criminal Code:
"Gain" - as used in S.197 para.(a), "gain" can include
direct winnings. Consequently, where the accused was an
exceptionally skilled professional gambler who supported the
commercial gambling establishment and paid employees out of
his large winnings, the premises fall within the meaning of
"common gaming house" R. v. Turmel (1996) 109 C.C.C. (3d)
162 (Ont.C.A.)

I have been accredited expert witness status in matters
related to the Mathematics of Gambling eight times.

1980 at Hull: Quebec Provincial Court Judge Charron.

1981 at Ottawa: Ontario Provincial Court Judge Hutton.

1981 at Ottawa: Ontario Provincial Court Judge White.

1980s at Hull: I was to be expert witness in Quebec
Provincial Court and the charges were withdrawn.

1989 at Ottawa: Ontario Provincial Court Judge Fontana;

1993 at Ottawa: Ontario Provincial Court Judge Wright;

1994 at Mississauga: Ontario Provincial Court Judge Rosemay;

2003 at Ottawa: Federal Tax Court Justice Diane Campbell in
Epel v. The Queen 2003 TCC 707 (CanLII) who ruled Epel's
non-professional gambling winnings were not taxable in
Canada as Turmel's professional winnings were.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/2003/2003tcc707/2003tcc707.html
Decision attached.

1995 United States & Atlantic City: I spent the next seven
years playing professional poker in the United States where
I became known as "The Professor" at the Trump Taj Mahal in
Atlantic City whose poker room was featured in the movie
"Rounders." I boast the highest hourly win rate in the world
over the past 25 years. Among the piranhas mentioned in
Rounders, the TajProfessor was The Great White Shark.

Since 2000, I have played poker professionally in Canada,
for the past 10 years at the OLG Brantford Poker Room.

I authored "Play Holdem Poker like a Bookie" and "How to
deal 60 Holdem hands per hour" and have engineered many new
Poker Power Tools to help up my world-record bets-per-
hour win rate which I have published in instructional poker
videos at http://johnturmel.com/tajprofessor.htm

An online search would find I am the only
Professor of Poker Systems Engineering or
Professor of Banking Systems Engineering on the planet.

My expertise is the application of game theoretic analysis
to determine the odds of real world physics.

Since 2000, I have devoted much of my attention to
decriminalizing the safest herbal remedy known to man and
explaining how its prohibition results in the reduced chance
of good health and survival by patients who would benefit
from it but who cannot access it in minimum time.
Dated at Brantford on April 19 2013.

File No.: 10948
SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER of compliance with the notice provisions of
section 657.3 of the Criminal Code with respect to expert
evidence

Between
Michael K. Spottiswood
Applicant/Accused

- and -

Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent

WILLSAY OF JOHN C. TURMEL, B. ENG.

I, John Turmel, make oath and will give expert opinion with
the Mathematics of Gambling to conclude that prohibition of
cannabis marijuana reduces the chances of a patient's good
health and survival for each of the following instances:

1. Because available US Government statistics show zero
deaths attributed to the use of the cannabis plant,

2. Because of the preponderant available evidence from US
insurance companies in states where they have recently
legalized marijuana shows that "high" drivers have less
accidents,

3. Because the preponderant available evidence backing the
University of Saskatchewan's 2006 study shows cannabis use
promotes neurogenesis, new brain cell growth, useful for
Alzheimer's and dementia victims,

4. Because the preponderant available evidence shows that
marijuana oil kills cancer and with a rise in cancers from
the Fukushima nuclear fallout we're being exposed to looming
expected,

5. Because the preponderant available evidence allows Health
Canada to permit the use of cannabis for so many varied
illnesses,

6. This expert in the Mathematics of Gambling will say:

7. If it's good for you once you're sick, it was probably
good for you before you got sick. Not using cannabis for
prevention of all the illnesses it's good for once you get
it before you get it reduces your chances of surviving the
illness.

8. Out of the ten Canadians who die from epileptic seizures
every day, four knew they were epileptic and could have been
alive today if all epileptics had been granted the same
protection of right to life as the Court of Appeal granted
Terrance Parker to possess a joint. 13 years since the
Parker decision, that's almost 20,000 epileptics who would
have survived had their anti-seizure medication not been
prohibited.

9. If it's beneficial when you get sick, not getting it on
demand reduces your chances of survival. Health Canada has
relegated the MMAR Exemption Applicants who died during the
delay in application processing to their "Dormants File,"
the wrong word for 6 feet under. Once the Defendant elicits
from Health Canada the number of "dormant" applicants to
date whom they could not find alive, the reduction of their
chances of survival due to the delay will have been
established.

10. In every case where cannabis has a life-saving
imperative, the bureaucratic delay in obtaining an exemption
increases the chance of ending up in Health Canada's
"Dormants" file.

11. As to Health Canada MMAR Regime, the expert opinion will
say:

a) MMAR S.32(e) limiting exemptees per gardener

12. Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in
Sfetkopoulos and Beren ruling the limit of one authorization
To Possess ("ATP") per gardener in MMAR S.41(b.1)
unconstitutionally violated their Charter rights, the new
MMAR S.32(e) limit of 2 exemptees per gardener also
unconstitutionally violates their right. In the little time
the limit was off before a new limit plus one was re-
imposed, a gardener could grow for as many Exemptees as was
most economical, perhaps 10 patients with 20 plants each
rather than only one! When you have an indoor garden that
could easily accommodate 200 plants, to be restricted to
only 20 or 40 is a waste of expensive electrical resources.
Lots of that light goes to waste. The government imposing a
new cap of 2 where it could be more economically cultivated
for 10 impedes supply as obviously as it did to the judges
in Sfetkopoulos and Beren. Impeding supply of medication
reduces the chances of survival.

b) If MMAR S.32(d) limiting gardeners per site

13. MMAR S.54(1) limiting three gardeners to a site
unconstitutionally violated Beren's Charter Right, the new
MMAR S.32(d) limit of 4 gardeners per site also
unconstitutionally violates their Right to Life and such
restricted supply to medicine reduces the chance of the
patient's survival. In the week the limit was off, any
number of gardeners could share one site as was most
economical, perhaps a site with 10 gardeners rather than
only 3. The new limit impedes supply as effectively as it
did to the judges in Beren. Arguing that bumping the limit
by 1 resolved the problem struck down by the courts seems
contemptuous. Once 4 is found unconstitutionally limiting,
will Health Canada now put a cap of 5? When...

c) MMAR S.65(1) compelling exemptees to destroy medicine

14. Witnesses will testify that S.65(1) compelled them to
destroy their crops and stored supply during the 2009-10
renewal delays at Health Canada and being forced to break
the law by not doing so. S.65(1) compelling exemptees to
destroy their medication when Health Canada is late with the
renewal is a clear violation of the patient's right to life.
Such malevolent policy's only purpose is to torment
exemptees every year right up to the last few days when
their exemption expires and the renewal finally arrives, or
not. Odds would suggest such stressful torment has
deleterious effect on the patients in the program. This
isn't like the stress of waiting for your fishing license,
it's stress waiting for your health care.

d) "Not All" doctors participate

15. Witnesses will testify that allowing the opting out of
the vast majority of doctors in Canada has led to long
searches, years, before finding a doctor to open the gate to
their medicine, such impediment unconstitutionally violating
the patient's Right to choose their own treatment. Allowing
doctors to not even consider the superior herbal medicines
reduces the patient's chance of successful treatment.

16. In the recent Mernagh decision, Justice Taliano declared
that the participation of 1 in 20 doctors in the MMAR
program rendered it ineffective and declared the prohibition
offences invalid. Applicant herein makes the stronger
argument that allowing doctors to opt out of the herbal
rather than chemical treatments is the unconstitutional
flaw. Morgentaler, Parker, Krieger all make the argument
that Patient Decides. They can't do that if the doctor may
refuse to consider herbal in his quest to push his chemical
drugs. With such good recent news about herbal's health
results, it's an indictment of the medical professional that
they are recalcitrant rather than leading the charge to
decriminalize this non-toxic miracle herb.

17. Justice Taliano's decision was over-turned by the
Ontario Court of Appeal who rebutted the presumption that
the doctors did not have good reasons to contra-indicate its
use when they refused and for Mernagh to get the doctors to
explain why they said no in his next trial. Because of this
decision, the Applicant will subpoena doctors to explain
whether they refused because herbal was contra-indicated, or
because their insurance companies and medical associations
had advised them against participation, or more acceptable,
that they didn't have time to fill out the yearly forms. I
would bet it will be proven that the majority of doctors had
no valid medical reasons contra-indicating the use of herbal
over chemical treatment.

e) Delay in processing of ATPs

18. The long approval process has resulted in patients who
died before they could be approved for their medicine. In
2002 court testimony, Health Canada admitted there were 89
applicants whose doctors had applied but whose prescriptions
were never authorized and whom could no longer be found
alive. They are listed in Health Canada's "Dormants File."
Like any medicine, any delay in filling the prescription can
be expected to statistically result in a "Dormants" file.
Health Canada now delivers marijuana by Priority Post the
very next day. There is no reason for such delays once the
doctor has signed the prescription. If anti-biotics were
authorized as slowly as marijuana, there'd be a huge
Dormants File. It's very existence proves the deleterious
effect on the health of the dormant corpses. Delaying the
prescribed medicine until an Applicant is dormant is not a
working regime.

19. When you get a new driver's license, you get a temporary
until the real one comes in the mail. When you get a Health
Card, you get a temporary one until the real one comes in
the mail. When your doctor signs your exemption for your
prescription, you get nothing until your real one comes in
the mail. And what's more stressful, waiting for your
driving permit, waiting for your Health card or waiting for
your medicine? And yet for the licence and health card, you
get temporary relief, but for the medicine, you get none!

f) Delays in ATP renewals

20. The long renewal process more than merely inconveniences
the patient with the stress of S.65 looming should the
renewal be late, but is completely unnecessary in an age
where all other government databases are updated
instantaneously! The slow route to renewing Exemptions
compared to the quick route for most all others, again has
deleterious effect on the chances of good health and
survival.

g) Delays in ATP amendments to documentation

21. Amendments are immediately made to temporary driver's
licenses, to temporary health cards, but not to exemptions
where such minutia could be registered online like any other
government database. With Driver's License, Health Card
information are all instantaneously updatable online, the
failure of Health Canada to effect similar efficiency
reduces the chances of good health

h) Delays in RCMP criminal record checks for growers

22. 6-8 month delays for the RCMP to photocopy criminal
records for growers in an era when that info can be
instantaneously obtained right in their cruisers slows down
a patient's access to his medicine for no particular good
reason other than shortage of copier toner.

i) Inability to exempt Canada's epileptic 400K population

23. Epilepsy.ca reported in 2001 that around 3,600 Canadians
die of epileptic seizures every year, 4 out of 10 who had
suffered previous seizures. 1,500 known epileptics per year.
Since 2000 when the Ontario Court of Appeal accepted
marijuana was effective in preventing epileptic seizures,
the Court only saved Parker's life with a constitutional
exemption while letting the remaining 1,500 die each year
over the past 13 years. 20,000 needless deaths of Canadian
epileptics by the Court of Appeal's failure to extend the
protection of the Charter to them as well as to Parker! The
chances of surviving their epileptic seizures were obviously
reduced for those 20,000 corpses, an obvious violation of
their right to life. The machinery of the regime isn't
capable of delivering the protection nor the medicine if all
Canada's exemptees were to join Terrance Parker in having
their Right to Life protected by the courts.

j) No DIN (Drug Identification Number) for financial support

24. Marijuana is the only medication for which there is no
financial support because the MMAR has not issued a Drug
Identification Number. Given the large number of illnesses
Health Canada had been forced to admit are helped by
marijuana, that its provision is not financially-supported
reduces a poorer citizen's chances of good health and
survival. No Drug Identification Number (DIN) inhibits
financial support that any other medication would receive.
Patients on fixed incomes cannot access the program due to
its high costs. Coming regulations will be worse. No more
friend growing it cheaply. When the new legislation bans
self-production and assigns provision to profit-oriented
enterprises, it will be even less affordable reducing the
chance of good health and survival.

k) Compel unreasonable yearly renewals for permanently ill

25. Witnesses with permanent diseases will testify to being
raided when their exemptions expired after their doctor had
died, moved, would or could not sign the renewal! People
with permanent diseases having to apply every year in an
environment where losing their doctor can be a catastrophe
reduces their chances of good health and survival.

26. Yearly renewals for permanent diseases is a waste of the
doctor's time, why many doctors don't want more herbal
patients, they know the forms are yearly and some doctors no
longer take exemption requests; a waste of the patient's
time when the prognosis is always the same or worse! It
could have been one interview to fill out one form for a
permanently ill patient! Health Canada's original
explanation for yearly exemption renewals for permanently
sick people was so they and their doctors could get better
at filling out forms! Finally, Health Canada now has to
process 20,000 renewals every year for mainly permanent
diseases! Quite threatening to everyone dependent on their
renewals. Imagine if all 400,000 epileptics were exempted
and would need 400,000 renewals every year thereafter?
Compelling yearly renewals from the permanently ill is
lunacy whose only purpose is malevolent impediment. "Oops,
too many renewals like in 2010, we're late again." Many
witnesses will testify to getting their renewals late
several times and breaking the law by not destroying their
medicine. While others will testify how the regime's failure
to keep up with their permanent condition caused them to be
raided and charged for continuing to use their best medicine
for their permanent condition!

l) Prohibiting removal of impurities

27. The prohibition on removal of plant impurities by
reduction to hash and oil shows the true lunatic malevolence
of the framers of the legislation. Given the common sense if
not common law mama taught us years ago that removal of the
worm from the apple makes for a better pie; removal of the
plant matter from the medicine makes for a better cure.
Prohibiting the removal of impurities is a malevolent
reduction in their chance of good health and survival. The
removal of non-smoked cannabis for medical use signifies
that Health Canada only allows the least medicinally
beneficial method of cannabis ingestion. This goes against
all scientific and medical evidence, as well as showing that
the ultimate goal of the regulations is not "to promote the
health of Canadians" but to satisfy the absolute minimum
legal requirements to trick the court into believing the
regulations are within constitutional bounds. Cannabis
extracts, concentrates, tinctures, ointments and other
preparations were known to have medicinal benefits more than
a century ago, yet are deliberately denied today with
demands for proof of past successful eras of medicinal use,
despite all the historical medical evidence in favor of
them. Denying the most medicinally beneficial means of
cannabinoid delivery deliberately limits medicinal benefits;
prohibiting the removal of possibly-dangerous plant matter
to make purer medicinal hash or oil, forcing people to
consume the impurities, contradicts the ministry's stated
aim to quality, again showing the malevolent prohibitionist
mind-set of these regulations that reduce the chances of
good health and survival.

28. Health Canada's web sites notes: "On April 13, 2012, the
Supreme Court of BC decision struck down the word "dried"
from the MMAR which allows for the possession and production
of manual and chemical extractions of THC from marijuana,
including hashish, hash oil, resin, oil. This decision is
applicable only in British Columbia and not the rest of
Canada."

29. We're told in Ontario, one can use the dried product but
dried bud won't work for the cancer on your nose. That takes
oil! In BC, there are no more people walking around with
dried herb on their noses. Applicant seeks to have this
prohibition struck down in Ontario too.

m) No bulk grow means no respite

30. The regime is tailored to keep production at the basic
minimum with no respite possible from constant gardening
chores rather than allow one bulk grow to bank the herb
every few years. Most unexempted who are in medical need
would rather not break the law growing full time and would
thus grow a year or two's worth in once harvest.

31. This explains Accused's almost 200 viable plants, trying
to grow enough for a year or two rather than have to keep
running the risk of arrest full time. Why can't exemptees
order a year's supply from their grower who can now
economize on expenses? Exemptees with cancer can't be
expected to be growing until the end. And they can't be
expected to start paying top dollar when they no longer have
the health to do the gardening. What are they supposed to
do? Exemptees should be able to grow enough to bank some.

32. Growers starting out cannot quickly reach their maximum
allowed stored supply with the limited number of plants
allowed per gram of prescription. Other witnesses will
testify about being recently charged with over-growing their
limits while still not having their allowed maximum amount
in storage. Making exemptees grow their supply at a lower
than maximum rate makes it more expensive while they suffer
the stress of running out a lot more often than those who
get away with growing their limit in one or two crops and
then cruising at legal.

n) Too much info on exemption card

33. Accused's Exemption card issued on June 22 2011 contains
the following unnecessary information fields about the
location where exemptee's controlled substance can be found:
- Address: number street town
- Site production: same as residence
- Site storage: same as residence
- Mode production: indoor
- Maximum Number of plants: 49
- Storage Limitation: 2.205Kg
Witnesses will testify that any information on the personal
card other than Name and Legal Amount to carry is a threat
to their grow-ops. How much is stored, where, is unnecessary
data that did not have to be on the card. This information
does nothing to help an officer know the person is exempted
but can only help anyone else identify the location of the
Exemptee's Medicine Cabinet.

o) Cash costs for doctor participation

34. Exemptee witnesses will testify how cash costs to get a
doctor to fill out MMAR forms, every year, has impeded
access for poorer Canadians thus violating the Right to
Life. A needless yearly expense for an Applicant with
permanent illnesses reduces the chances of good health and
survival.

p) 3% Health Canada strain not medicinal enough

35. Witnesses will testify that Health Canada's contracted
strain claims to have 10% but actually has only 3% THC
whereas marijuana grown by the Vancouver Compassion Society
was reported over 12%. This makes the Health Canada strain
not a medicinal one but a recreational one at best. As well,
to get to 3% potency, plant matter had to be added to the
bud to bring the blend down to 3%. At the same time that
Health Canada adds impurities to debase its own product, it
also bans the removal of those very impurities it itself
added, thus impeding effectiveness and violation the Right
to Life.

q) No exchanging different strains for different pains

36. Health Canada provides one hybrid strain and no
exchanging strains with other exemptees is a hindrance to
finding different strains for different pains. The selection
by Health Canada/PPS of a single hybrid strain of cannabis,
predominantly indica, removes the ability of an individual
with specific conditions that respond better to other
strains, is akin to your doctor and/or pharmacist saying
"Take two aspirin for whatever ails you." Since it is widely
known that some cannabis strains work well for some people
and not as well for others, and different conditions,
diseases or syndromes are affected in different ways by the
differing cannabinoid profile of specific strains, but not
others, and it is also known that different people have
higher or lower tolerances, greater or lesser medicinal
need, the single strain selected by Health Canada/PPS seems
to be deliberately designed to limit the potential range of
applications, rather than addressing the widest range of
conditions with the greatest number of potential options;
the exact opposite of the pharmaceutical model. Exemptees
may not trade seeds, product or clones. These are serious
limitations on exchanging to find different strains for
different pains which impede effectiveness to violate the
Right to Life.

r) Number of plants the wrong parameter

37. Since every strain of sativa, indica, ruderalis, and all
hybrids created therefrom (and there are HUNDREDS!), produce
different yields per plant, the "number of plants"
restriction is arbitrary, and has no basis in fact unless
patients grow the SINGLE strain offered by "Health Canada",
which has proven to be of little value to most medical
cannabis patients; the number of plants is the wrong main
limiting parameter that impedes supply to violate the Right
to Life. It should be the stored amounts and daily dosage,
with as many plants as necessary to achieve and then
maintain that amount.

s) High-cost chemicals v. Low-cost herbals

38. Witnesses will testify to the incredibly high costs of
their former chemical drug regimens that have been reduced
when they substituted low-cost home-grown medicine to save
the government a substantial amount which could he spent
furthering even better services now denied because of the
waste on needless pharmaceuticals. Our taxes would go .
Chemical medical costs are far greater than herbal medical
costs and could save everyone a bundle. So cutting down
Health Costs improves the chances of good health and
survival for the exemptee and general public too.

t) Phone calls urging doctors lower dosages

39. Witnesses will testify Health Canada's long telephone
calls to doctors urging lower dosages has sometimes resulted
in reductions of dosage! a violation of the Exemptee's right
to medical privacy. What are they doing discussing dosages
with the doctor? urging a change in prescription? How dare
they? In 2009 and 2010, Health Canada were spending their
resources calling doctors to challenge them on the dosages
being too high and urging all patients be restricted to
their Health Canada Pharmacist-recommended 5 grams for
everyone while renewals were running months late!

u) Five million Canadians do not have family doctors

40. Some witnesses to testify are among the five million
Canadians who do not have doctors and cannot avail
themselves of the MMAR program and have their Right to Life
violated. The MMAR has not provided access to this cheap
medication for 5 million Canadians. This failure should be
reason enough to declare the MMAR as a failed regime. How is
someone without doctor going to access and try the herbal
treatment people with doctors get to try?

v) Stress from MMAR defects

41. Witnesses will testify of the stress caused by all these
defects in the MMAR exemption process that violate
Canadians' and Exemptees' Right to Life. After having read
of all the malevolent regulations to impede access and
torment exemptees, the stress of living with such a regime
must probably impact on health. Exemptees are dealing with a
prohibitionist lunatic in charge and the stress they face is
incredible. And the lunatic is now coming out with new
legislation to make things even worse. Living with the
prohibitionist lunatics in charge is stressful.

w) Doctors as Gatekeepers

42. Most of the witnesses will testify how many doctors have
refused to be gatekeepers for their access to herbal
medicine. Health Canada making recalcitrant doctors the
gatekeepers of this non-toxic therapy violates the patient's
right to decide. Doctors should not be able to deny a
patient his right to the treatment of his choice. The MMAR
does that and should be struck down in its entirety for
that. Appointing unwilling gatekeepers with the right to
refuse to bother with the gate reduces the chances of good
health and survival.

43. For all these reasons, expert opinion will say that
prohibition of cannabis marijuana reduces the chance of good
health and survival for all Canadians.

44. This Willsay is made in support of an application by
Michael K. Spottiswood for a declaration that the CDSA
prohibitions on marijuana are an unconstitutional violation
of the Charter Section 7 Right to Life.



___________________________________________
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave., Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122, Cell: 519-717-1012
Email: johnt...@yahoo.com