Legal Challenge Update

We refuse to comply to a unlawful request that as no longer any legal claim with outdated regulations. It is the duty of the united kingdom to comply with the directives of the United Nations. It does not bring any joy or satisfaction to be the ones to challenge the MRHA and appreciate that wires can be crossed although we have made it perfectly clear that with a medicine which as no drug enforcement attached to it there is no restrictions that can be applied to the marketing. To claim that there needs to be licencing 2022 regarding controlled drugs when under the the 2020 directives of the united nations that it was to be removed from the controlled drug schedule. We politely decline to comply to a unlawful request (unlawful because removal will cease to allow us to benefit from this advertising). We also make formal claim that under the directives of a senior organisation IE the United Nations a member state IE the United Kingdom will by pursuing with their claim that we are breaching regulations that are totally outdated is completely unfounded with no legal merit. We respectfully now recognize that there is on occasions the requirement for certain wording that may be deemed more appropriate to allow the MRHA to gracefully bow out of this case although why should that respect be given to a department that does not have the updated evidence to validate their claim that we remove certain advertising within the parameters of the meteverse. Government organizations are formed to give guidance as well as up to date evidence when requested. For a institute that declares to be a medical board of substance the fact that they are obviously not up to date with directives or choose to ignore these directives are not entitled to gracefully bow out of a case. We I at British Health Care now invite the MRHA to show directives that override the 2020 directives issued via the United Nations. As the member of the club (The United Nations) the club member (The United Kingdom) needs to follow the rules of the club. For total transparency we shall proceed to now update with correspondence between ourselves and the MRHA into files that will be used as future evidence if needed.


Well into the third year of the global pandemic, with document rising cost of living as well as the unclear results of geopolitical concerns roiling worldwide markets, the cannabis sector has actually nonetheless continued upon a similar path as in recent years. Public ballot proceeds to show that the frustrating bulk of U.K. adults sustain the legalization of marijuana for medical use with several of the public being unaware that cannabis is no longer a regulated medicine with regulations from the United Nations after suggestions from the Globe Health Organisation the elimination of marijuana from the timetable IV of the 1961 Convention restricts legislation enforcement capacity to apply obsolete guidelines. The people of the globe have complete inalienable civil liberties as the government knows so without more interruption from divisions of the imploding government it is the obligation of every marijuana business that advertises medical cannabis within the United Kingdom to oppose any type of unlawful directives. Lawful jurisdiction is what the United Kingdom operates within

The Cannabis Sector Leadership Group

Jud Chad-Bourne

It is noted that global advisors within the industry recommends that some restrictions stay in place although these restrictions are to be upheld with integrity with a understanding that because of the past prohibition there is still much we need to learn in regards to the long term effects for people who choose to use medical cannabis. Knowing the difference between legal and lawful challenges is always a good starter.

Actions that cause harm are unlawful.