What is the position of the accused in the context of medical marijuana use?

From those two authorities the accused takes the position that so long as a person taking marijuana is not a danger to other people, his freedom interests under s. 2 should permit the accused to self-medicate himself and to the extent he is prevented from doing so by the criminal provisions of the CSDA they are a violation of the Charter. This principle is indistinguishable from the harm principle rejected in R v. Malmo-Levine. The difficulty with that argument is that the accused is not charged with simple possession for the purpose of his own consumption and there are no facts to support medical use by the accused or his customers. He is charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking. Thus even if the accused is correct in the principles that he seeks to draw from these two cases, the facts do not support the application of that principle to this case.