The second alleged defect is that according to the petitioners, the audit team penetrated the computers of the remote house without a court order and extracted data from there. In this matter as well, I accept the decision at the hearing, both from the factual and legal aspects. From a factual perspective, it was found that the chief pharmacist at the Tiberias branch was asked to generate the reports from the computer, but claimed that he did not have the technical knowledge to do so, and therefore asked for the help of the audit team. In this situation, the production of the reports was done under the responsibility of the pharmacist in charge of the branch and with his full accompaniment. Afterwards, with the arrival of Shai Kornland, one without the branch, who continued to produce the reports. In this situation, it cannot be said that the petitioners' description of the production of the reports is consistent with the facts, and in any event, there is no substance to the argument that an order was required for the production of the reports. Section 6027 of the Pharmacists Ordinance establishes the powers of the supervisor during supervision. This includes section 60K7(2) that for the purpose of supervision, the supervisor may "require any person concerned to provide him with any information or document that may ensure or facilitate the implementation of the provisions under this Ordinance; In this paragraph, a 'document' - including output, as defined inthe Computers Law, 5755-1995 for the purpose of supervision, a supervisor may." The audit team did not need a court order and in any case, it was entitled to demand the information required for the audit.
Conclusion and Conclusion
- From all of the aforesaid, it emerges that the hearing proceeding was conducted lawfully after examining all the necessary facts and that there was no flaw in the conduct of the hearing panel or in the manner in which its decision was made. His decision is very reasonable and it even seems that it is necessary in the circumstances of the case, and therefore there is no reason to intervene in it.
As the respondents have argued time and again, the practice of medical cannabis, which is defined as a dangerous drug and not as a preparation (drug), requires compliance with a series of provisions set forth in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, thePharmacists Ordinance, the regulations enacted by virtue of the Ordinances, and the procedures of the Ministry of Health and the Medical Association. Since the composition of the Hearing Committee, which is composed of senior professionals in the Ministry of Health, found, on the basis of a set of facts and evidence placed before them, that the Petitioner is not suitable to continue to work in this field, there was no reason to intervene in their decision. This is especially so in light of the dismal picture that arises from the petitioner's conduct, as is evident from the whole sequence of events since he began to work in the field of cannabis. It is also difficult to dispute the respondents' impression that instead of cooperating with the provisions of the law, the petitioner chose to conduct countless futile battles with the respondents, and especially to conduct himself in a manner that gives the impression that it is not impossible that he does not understand the seriousness of dealing with cannabis, the responsibility involved and the need to be supervised and controlled.
- The petition is dismissed.
The petitioner will bear the respondents' expenses in the sum of ILS 25,000.