Monday, June 1, 2015

How Much Did Allard Cost Harper?

CinC likes to edit my posts.  Here's the uncensored stuff:

The government has spent over a million dollars on Allard. In the lead-up to the February/March 2015 proceedings, the budget was projected to be $431,590.00 What did that pay for? Lawyers, paralegals, maybe flying in all those foreign witnesses* (which Justice Phelan said had little weight in a constitutional case). You would think with that kind of money they would have made a stronger case than, “fire, mold and organized crime.” But perhaps there were ideological strings being pulled somewhere beyond the traditional modes of power.

The litigation costs for the Department of Health went through the Department of Justice. I put in an Access to Information request and the facts contained here are what they sent me. We know these numbers pertain to Allard, but as to the specifics, the documents have been redacted as per Section 23 privacy issues. I guess the bureaucracy didn't want us seeing how wasteful everyone in government is. Nevertheless in December 2014, Allard cost taxpayers $57,436.30. And this is only the beginning. Earlier in September of 2014, taxpayers had no choice but to see their hard-earned wealth go to $100,602.90 in government legal fees. And we can go back further. In July 2014, Allard cost taxpayers a total of $99,217.19. In May it was $85,301.79 and this was after the injunction. This was the government responding to Justice Manson's ruling, not by rewriting the MMPR, but by fighting patients with their own money.

There are only two ways to acquire wealth: you earn it or steal it. Some may say you inherit it, but an inheritance must come from somewhere. Did you create value in the marketplace and trade with your brethren through voluntary association? Or did you acquire wealth by holding a monopoly on all use of legitimate violence? Perhaps you have discovered a third way of creating value in the marketplace, but then using the government's monopoly on violence to prevent competitors from replacing you—much like the LPs vis-à-vis the original MMAR growers. The Defendant in Allard is the federal government. They didn't ask for the funds necessary to go after non-violent farmers and patients, the federal government gets away with demanding money from people without providing a good or service first. In someone's twisted logic, going after medicinal cannabis gardens may be providing a service for society, but we're still left with the issue of how they acquired the means to do so. Without voluntary trade, how can we know that this service was actually in demand? Chances are, it wasn't.

If Canada were a bit freer, we wouldn't be having this issue. We wouldn't have to worry about how in the lead up to the first Allard case, taxpayers involuntarily contributed $247,834.01 to the government's defense. Or how the more recent 2015 case cost us $464,752.81. By March 2015 the federal government had spent $1,071,501.76 defending their coercive elimination of Canada's original medical cannabis farms and patient's personal gardens.

Meanwhile the Cannabis Rights Coalition has raised four times less than that – literally – and yet they are still winning the fight. The Coalition didn't have the bottomless pit of the taxpayer; they relied on voluntary donations. For every dollar raised, the government raised three more. But in spite of the odds, the Coalition prevailed because relying on voluntary donations means the money must used wisely. People must have an incentive to give. The government doesn't need this kind of accountability. They take by force and spend as they please. Whatever they don't collect in taxes they borrow from future generations. Elections? Look no further than the wise words of H. L. Mencken, “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

For now the injunction is still in place. While the federal government continues to appeal and spend our money doing so, the Coalition is continually growing and getting ready for any challenge the prohibitionists throw at them. Meanwhile the government's side of the case remains funded with taxpayer money. With no risk of a shortfall, the organizational result is inevitable bureaucracy: wasteful and ineffective.

* From the former head of the medical cannabis program in Israel to a top bureaucrat in the Dutch regime (plus a variety of “experts” from the United States) the Crown spent a pretty penny (the details have been redacted) to fly prominent civil servants, scientists and University professors from all over the world to Vancouver's federal court building.


  1. any chance of you posting what you received online? very interested in seeing the breakdown

    1. Soon, the Globe and Mail are doing a larger piece on it

  2. I should include a way to identify myself here