Hi again,
Please tell me about YOUR position on... YOUR YOU YOUR
Ah, yes. It does that everytime!
I also remember posting this:
I know, that's not fair. Not fair because of the way how YOU got it...
Never mind the rest as a matter of fact, for the time being the only item of importance is contained in these few words:
how YOU got it
That's one way to present it but i could have chosen another format:
HOW you got it
At the moment i tend to conclude i should have, then now i might be replying that you've been made hostage by the Canadian government in virtue of a treaty which Canada signed under the ONU flag on this most fatidic date: June 27, 1928!! I suppose some penguins in Geneva were looking for a good cause in hope to justify their own jobs in the process, go figure!...
Euh... But i won't do any of this, right?
...
What about the whole matter of alcohol versus cannabis in our legal system today???
Hummm... There again i was tempted to get
off-topic, once more!! Beep! Beep!...
Who cares in the end?! I don't really remember, i wasn't even born in 1928 after all!!!
TRANSLATION
Too bad, the whole fundations allowing such a thread to exist (see title above) happens to be flawed/biased, name it! Consequently the law with it and hence its yet-to-come "proposed changes", quite evidently!
Simply put i perceive legit MMAR clients as victims just like the rest of us. End of drama.
Euh... Or instead i could have answered that you've necessarily misread me or else. Which i suspect could be a real possibility here as well.
ADDENDUM:
Some linked reference from U.K., to redifine the time-frame in a global context: