Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Fantastic analysis.
If you bothered to read my arguments, it's not me saying it. It's the federal government saying it through the legislation. So, no, it doesn't. I based my argument on evidence. You are basing your argument on "don't make it so". At least try.
We were debating the allegations against Bill's father. No, it has nothing to do with that debate. Try again.
That has absolutely nothing - ZERO - to do with what we were debating. Nothing. At all.
Health Canada is a government ministry. As such, they are bound by statute. Nowhere under s. 26 of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119, grounds for refusal, does it authorize the Minister to refuse to grant a license due to the actions of a family member (in this case, charges were dropped anyways). The Minister is not authorized to act outside of the scope of what the legislation grants him jurisdiction to do.
Unless there's some aspect of Canadian law that I'm unfamiliar with that you can specifically point to, you should just give it up.
No, actually, they can't. That's akin to saying that Ministry of Transportation can't issue you a license because your father has a DUI. Or you can't get a prescription for painkillers because your sister was convicted of trafficking. It doesn't work like that. You're actually completely wrong on this one, and you posted a misleading article as you didn't include the follow up where Health Canada recommended the charges be dropped. Just give this one up dude, there's enough issue with this company that you can pick on them with other things.
You should, in fairness, also post the subsequent story, where consultations with Health Canada caused the federal prosecutor to drop the charges:
Steroid Trafficking Charges Dropped;
Sacheli, Sarah. The Windsor Star. 11 May 2005
A local store owner says he feels vindicated, but still unfairly treated, after drug trafficking charges were dropped in court this week.
Bassem Bahige Chaaban, 64, owner of two Edge Nutrition stores in the city, was charged last year with possessing an anabolic steroid for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking an anabolic steroid.
He insists police should have never laid the charges in the first place. "It was not illegal," he said Tuesday of a muscle-building dietary supplement called M-Test seized by police last year.
Chaaban said he feels he was persecuted by police. He said police should have had the substance tested before laying charges. Instead, he says, they seized more than $100,000 of product form his stores and kept it for months after chemical testing showed it did not contain an illegal compound.
"They should have retuned it as soon as they learned it wasn't illegal."
Chaaban said his arrest and the ensuring publicity hurt business. "Everybody thinks I'm a crook," he said.
Crown prosecutor Richard Pollock said all charges were dropped after consultation with Health Canada. "The chemical analysis raised a doubt whether it was an anabolic steroid."
(Copyright The Windsor Star 2005).
Look I'm skeptical about the company too but a government institution in Canada cannot deny someone licensing or services based on the actions of that person's family members and friends.
To clear up misinformation about Lakeshore council meeting:
A lot of people are saying this doesn't apply to CEN Biotech, that it only applies to future applicants...this is incorrect. When you listen to the opening address, they clearly say that this is dealing with the regulations when they deal with the individual sites, including CEN Biotech. This absolutely DOES apply to FITX, they are laying out the groundwork for how they will deal with CEN Biotech with zoning.
Perhaps you should use some context and realize the company's mission and anticipated revenue stream changed drastically after that, thus any talk of uplisting would be delayed. When we talk about uplisting, we mean uplisting CEN as it currently stands, a primarily medical marijuana company. Clearly things changed drastically after that letter for the company as a whole.
It's a very small group of residents who want to cash in on some kind of compensation. This doesn't negatively affect them in any real way - the only reason why this is getting any press or attention is because there is an upcoming election.
I'm not suggesting an uplist. Read what I wrote. I'm suggesting that uplisting wasn't something discussed in 2012.
Check your facts? Uplisting was not even up for discussion until this year. Not 2012. Stop spreading lies please.
You're totally correct. Fitx has never turned a profit. This does put them in line with the overwhelming majority of start-ups, but yeah, you're right.
Alternatively, Health Canada may be inundated with applications and applicants are facing long delays in the licensing process. This is what has been reported by several credible media outlets. But I suppose some will just take your word for it.
Tomorrow is Saturday. Government offices will be closed.
IMO? There are really no grounds on which to base this opinion. It's in Health Canada's hands. Clearly the process is a very slow one and they have a dearth of applications to go through. I've worked for several government agencies in the past - it's slow across the board. Why don't we wait until we have some concrete information before saying they were rejected or approved?
So you asking me why he posted an article was a rhetorical question, and I was supposed to know that you posted something answering that rhetorical question yesterday?
Ok.
I'm merely stating the facts. Health Canada inspected the property July 31. He stated he expects the license to be issued by the end of the month. We have no idea what Health Canada told him - perhaps they said it takes 4-6 weeks? Perhaps they said it takes roughly a month? He could be basing his opinion on what they told him. I'm not defending Bill, I'm merely pointing out that he did NOT say he's getting the license at the end of the month and he does NOT control the process. If people don't understand that it's not him issuing the license, perhaps they shouldn't be investing in this stock. Him stating his expectations on a government process is NOT out of sync with any other company stating its expectations. Expectations are not fact and are not binding. That's basic, and I do think that, despite my own reservations about him and the company, it's unfair to attack him on that front.
You asked why he's posting an article on his FB regarding the inspection if he doesn't know when the license will be approved. I said he's keeping shareholders updated regarding the status of the licensing, but that his expectation on when it'll actually be approved isn't binding as that is in Health Canada's hands. Please explain to me how that is not responding to your post.
He merely stated his expectation. He stated that Health Canada was there to inspect. If he didn't release this news and it became public, you'd admonish him for holding back news. He does release the news, you admonish him for...pumping? For releasing an update? Come on.
He said he expects it by the end of the month. He does not work for Health Canada, nor does he control Health Canada's processes. He can't predict when they will approve/reject. He expected it by month's end, that doesn't mean he said it'll happen by month's end. It's beyond his or the company's control.
I'm not spinning. You keep citing examples from Colorado re: the municipality and the courts. The legislation that applies to municipalities and the court's jurisdiction in Colorado are entirely different than in Ontario. I'm merely suggesting to stop using those as examples/precedents because they simply don't apply here.
You need to stop comparing Colorado to Ontario. Two entirely different sets of legislation. Municipalities in Ontario are creatures of statute governed by statute.
The town doesn't need a permit, and the town isn't doing the growing.
Canadian courts would not deal with the residents' concerns in this situation. That is outside the courts' jurisdiction. Their concern would be whether the city has acted ultra vires its jurisdiction under the Municipal Act, 2001.
I'm not sure how Colorado law works, but I am intricately familiar with Canadian law. I doubt a challenge to Richmond council's decision would be unsuccessful. Also, Bill isn't suing Lakeshore, and Lakeshore isn't proposing to make commercial grow ops illegal. In the case of Richmond, municipalities are creatures of statute (Municipal Act, 2001) and are bound in their jurisdiction to follow statute. While they have control over zoning, they may have gone too far in "prohibiting" a specific use. I'm not sure about BC municipal law as I'm only licensed in Ontario, but s. 23.3(1) of the Municipal Act and s. 34 of the Planning Act don't give municipalities the carte blanche zoning power that Richmond seems to be exercising (see: http://www.gowlings.com/knowledgeCentre/publicationPDFs/Official_but_illegal.pdf).
Ok I see what you're getting at. I think we've been having a miscommunication then. What I mean is that drug law does not apply differently in different parts of the country. A distributor can get a license to grow in any part of the country. Zoning requirements are a different thing; they don't speak to the legality of growing marijuana commercially. If a company holds a license to grow commercially, they can grow commercially anywhere in the country as it is federal law that governs this. Commercial zoning is within the municipality's jurisdiction, but it's not specifically directed at marijuana operations. I would go further and contend that Richmond's council acted ultra vires their jurisdiction by unilaterally banning commercial marijuana operations. If you look at ss. 38-40 of the MMPR, you'll see that local approval is NOT needed in the licensing process, just notice to local authorities. The question of zoning is within the municipality's jurisdiction - this does not speak to the "legality" of commercial grow operations - this is within the federal government's jurisdiction. Solely targeting one business in zoning decisions, however, may be ultra vires the municipality's jurisdiction and I can see a successful court challenge to this.
Ok let's start at the beginning. Canada is NOT the United States. We have a different system. In the US, laws may vary state-by-state. Drug law in Canada is completely different. It is all federally controlled. This means that what is illegal/legal to grow in, say, British Columbia, is the same in, say, Ontario. The legality of drugs is described in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the regulations. There is no provincial/municipal legislation that can speak to this.
Marijuana is federally regulated. It can't be made legal/illegal in any one part of the country.
Neither one of you work for Health Canada. Him saying it's guaranteed is equally as baseless as you saying it's never going to happen.
THAT'S how you interpret "amazing" in that context?
You can check if there has been a license issued here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php
As of right now, Health Canada has inspected the property and it is in their hands. So no, there is no license yet. I think you'll find the above site useful as you can visit it every few hours rather than sarcastically post "license yet?" here every few hours.
It was dead on? I doubt they'd have Health Canada inspect it if they didn't have a floor. Explain how that was "dead on".
What leads you to believe that they've "been cited for deficiencies"? This is a pretty specific accusation which "IMO" isn't enough to back up. Is there any evidence for this?
You know the answer to that. They do not. Again: They do not have their license yet. It has not been issued. Are you going to keep asking when you know the answer? It's in Health Canada's hands right now.