Not only stuck in the dark ages, the government actually ran a "Marijuana is bad" commercial during HNIC the other week. I swear to god I thought I fell into a time machine and woke up in the 80's.
I think that if I remember that ad, it wasn't as much a anti-criminal statement as it talked about the negative effects of grass on developing minds.
I have no trouble with that kind of ad.
If it was, smoke this spliff and the cops would get you, I'd actually agree.
But this ad to me was no different then the ads for smoking is bad and drinking a bunch is bad.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I am pro legalization but yes, the negative effect on a developing mind can be drastic. Same with alcohol too though, I don't remember seeing don't drink ads for adolescents.
I just wish the issue would go away. Let the government spend time helping people with substance abuse issues.
I can't stand the smell of marijuana. It literally leaves me close to throwing up. So if legalizing it means an increase in usage in public places, I am very much against it. I realize though it is likely inevitable... and the tax revenue it will generate for the government is just too attractive for them.
I have no desire to support a party that tried to form a minority government with a separatist party. Perhaps I can forgive them in time... but not yet.
Not in favour of universal daycare either... unless you are a single parent because of divorce or rape, you should have the responsibility of caring for your own children.
The conservative party has warts too of course. I would like to know why Harper has not fulfilled some of his promises from years ago, such as why we still have a Senate among other things.
I can't stand the smell of marijuana. It literally leaves me close to throwing up. So if legalizing it means an increase in usage in public places, I am very much against it. I realize though it is likely inevitable... and the tax revenue it will generate for the government is just too attractive for them.
I have no desire to support a party that tried to form a minority government with a separatist party. Perhaps I can forgive them in time... but not yet.
Not in favour of universal daycare either... unless you are a single parent because of divorce or rape, you should have the responsibility of caring for your own children.
The conservative party has warts too of course. I would like to know why Harper has not fulfilled some of his promises from years ago, such as why we still have a Senate among other things.
If I'm not mistaken the states that have legalized marijuana have incorporated marijuana into their smoking laws, and there's no reason why that wouldn't be the case here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I think that if I remember that ad, it wasn't as much a anti-criminal statement as it talked about the negative effects of grass on developing minds.
I have no trouble with that kind of ad.
If it was, smoke this spliff and the cops would get you, I'd actually agree.
But this ad to me was no different then the ads for smoking is bad and drinking a bunch is bad.
My concern is that the ads for prescription drug and alcohol abuse appear far less frequently then the ads for marijuana and those are the far more serious problems. Also of concern is that claims made by the ad don't appear to be based on any sound science.
How did we go from nearly decrim'ing it under liberals 15 years ago, when the US saw us a a liability to their war on drugs, to now, where they have whole states where it is legal and sold recreationally, and we're still stuck in the dark ages.
I can see Trudeau making big inroads with a legalization policy
I'm just going to throw this out there....it's a bit more of a theory than anything that I can support by fact.
In the US, money talks. I think we all understand that the idea of taxing pot for revenue, but the big win is reducing the (imo, just ridiculous) amount of money spent policing, convicting, and ultimately incarcerating massive numbers of people for simple possession. At a rate of ~$30,000 per person per year, States spend a huge amount of money locking people up. The prisons are bursting at the seams and most States are desperate to reduce the cost burden.
While there's certainly been some (surprisingly well organized) social pressure/lobbying to legalize marijuana in the US, I believe that the biggest reason it receives State Government support is based on the finances.
Lower policing and prison costs on one side of the ledger, and higher revenues on the other side. IMO, that is what's driving legalization efforts south of the border.
Comparatively, I don't think Canada (currently) sees the same level of pressure. That said, there's still savings to be had and for some reason we're trying to increase our incarceration rate despite the US clearly demonstrating that its a road to failure (although that's a different topic for another day).
__________________
Last edited by WilsonFourTwo; 11-07-2014 at 06:51 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to WilsonFourTwo For This Useful Post:
I'm just going to throw this out there....it's a bit more of a theory than anything that I can support by fact.
In the US, money talks. I think we all understand that the idea of taxing pot for revenue, but the big win is reducing the (imo, just ridiculous) amount of money spent policing, convicting, and ultimately incarcerating massive numbers of people for simple possession. At a rate of ~$30,000 per person per year, States spend a huge amount of money locking people up. The prisons are bursting at the seams and most States are desperate to reduce the cost burden.
While there's certainly been some (surprisingly well organized) social pressure/lobbying to legalize marijuana in the US, I believe that the biggest reason it receives State Government support is based on the finances.
Lower policing and prison costs on one side of the ledger, and higher revenues on the other side. IMO, that is what's driving legalization efforts south of the border.
Comparatively, I don't think Canada (currently) sees the same level of pressure. That said, there's still savings to be had and for some reason we're trying to increase our incarceration rate despite the US clearly demonstrating that its a road to failure (although that's a different topic for another day).
This is also why you are likely to never see decrim happen in states that contain mostly Private prisons. The War On Drugs makes or breaks those places.
EDIT: This is also why the PCs are ramping up their anti-pot campaigns, as Harper has been courting Private prison contractors to Canada, but needs to get the public on the side of increased drug incarceration rates to make it more attractive to them. :tinfoil:
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
Last edited by PsYcNeT; 11-07-2014 at 09:21 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
This is also why you are likely to never see decrim happen in states that contain mostly Private prisons. The War On Drugs makes or breaks those places.
EDIT: This is also why the PCs are ramping up their anti-pot campaigns, as Harper has been courting Private prison contractors to Canada, but needs to get the public on the side of increased drug incarceration rates to make it more attractive to them. :tinfoil:
Put away that tinfoil hat:
Quote:
OTTAWA -- The Harper government has been quietly studying private prisons in other countries as a possible model to save money in federal penitentiaries, CTV News has learned.
The government hired the consulting firm Deloitte & Touche to examine prisons in seven countries aimed at building an “understanding of various models, approaches and experiences,” according the 1,400-page report obtained by CTV News under the Access to Information Act.
The massive report was kept secret from Canada’s Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers, who expressed concerns about for-profit prisons in Canada.
“This study came as a surprise. I wasn’t aware that they had commissioned this study,” Sapers said. “I’m always concerned when Corrections is treated just like another business. It’s hard to find profit in that kind of enterprise.”
Deloitte studied in detail 10 prisons in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Spain and Belgium -- providing an assessment and recommendation on each prison’s “relevancy to Canadian market” and their “relation to Correctional Services Canada.”
Some of those prisons in the Deloitte study were fully operated by private firms, while other institutions hired companies for basic services such as cleaning, laundry and food preparation services.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews acknowledged he discussed the idea of private prisons with his British counterpart in a meeting in May, but said he ended up ruling it out.
“Britain indicates . . . that there were benefits. I’ve examined that myself, but I don’t see there are sufficient benefits to change over an entire system,” Toews said.
“I didn’t feel there was any benefit to going toward a privatization model, that is the private supervision of prisoners,” he said. “We have no interest in going to a private model which would put the supervision of prisoners in private hands.”
But critics question why the government commissioned the reports, which were completed between October 2011 and this March.
Alright, with the Liberal majority, and what looks to be pretty wide-spread support for this, I just wanted to bump this thread with some thoughts.
How is this going to be implemented? How has it been done in other places? I'm thinking specifically how we move out the criminal aspect of it. It's different for the US, as they legalized it on state levels, which means they can legitimize businesses and those who want to remain in the criminal side of it can just move their operations to a different state. In Canada, it's going to have to be national, and I believe we likely have one of the larger marijuana production levels in the world (that's just a guess, but I don't doubt it). There are huge fields hidden away in BC that will need to be legitimized. How will this work? Give criminals the option to become legit businesses, but then do we forgive all previous crimes that were associated with the drug trade (extortion, assaults, murders)? What about groups like the Hell's Angels? What if criminals don't want to turn over their crops? Would there need to be an initial seizure of land? That would likely require a significant police presence to do so, and could potentially be violent.
These are honestly just questions. I can't see why criminals would want to remain so, even if it is likely more lucrative, the loss in profits should be offset by legitimization and the loss of violence in their business, but we also know how much the dollar means (heck, we have legitimate businesses that constantly do illegal things for the sake of profit as it is).
How did it work with alcohol prohibition? What was the process in a place like Portugal, or even the Netherlands?
What does it mean for BC? This is a multi-billion dollar boost to their GDP, but the market is only the rest of Canada. With Washington as a border state, will we be able to sell internationally to them? This opens a whole (very interesting) can of worms trade-wise.
Just interested in other's people's thoughts on how to implement, less so on whether or not you agree, as that's been discussed to death.
The tax revenues should go towards an education program aimed at grades 8-12 about the actual negative consquences of drug use. They taught us DARE when I was in grade 6 and it was beyond useless; they tried to scare us out of it and gave details about crack cocaine production. Stupid program that was a huge failure.
They should regulate it just like alcohol and treat those who distribute to minors the same. Educate and inform, there's no need to scare people away from it. Just use logic and things will be fine.
The biggest problem is going to be children gaining access followed by people driving. The real danger is actually edibles because they can mess people up, especially children. I'd hate to see a child sick on edibles, it can last for days and could damage development significantly.
Alright, with the Liberal majority, and what looks to be pretty wide-spread support for this, I just wanted to bump this thread with some thoughts.
How is this going to be implemented? How has it been done in other places? I'm thinking specifically how we move out the criminal aspect of it. It's different for the US, as they legalized it on state levels, which means they can legitimize businesses and those who want to remain in the criminal side of it can just move their operations to a different state. In Canada, it's going to have to be national, and I believe we likely have one of the larger marijuana production levels in the world (that's just a guess, but I don't doubt it). There are huge fields hidden away in BC that will need to be legitimized. How will this work? Give criminals the option to become legit businesses, but then do we forgive all previous crimes that were associated with the drug trade (extortion, assaults, murders)? What about groups like the Hell's Angels? What if criminals don't want to turn over their crops? Would there need to be an initial seizure of land? That would likely require a significant police presence to do so, and could potentially be violent.
These are honestly just questions. I can't see why criminals would want to remain so, even if it is likely more lucrative, the loss in profits should be offset by legitimization and the loss of violence in their business, but we also know how much the dollar means (heck, we have legitimate businesses that constantly do illegal things for the sake of profit as it is).
How did it work with alcohol prohibition? What was the process in a place like Portugal, or even the Netherlands?
What does it mean for BC? This is a multi-billion dollar boost to their GDP, but the market is only the rest of Canada. With Washington as a border state, will we be able to sell internationally to them? This opens a whole (very interesting) can of worms trade-wise.
Just interested in other's people's thoughts on how to implement, less so on whether or not you agree, as that's been discussed to death.
I would look to the model of Colorado. You can legally own and grow up to 6 plants for personal/recreational use. You can possess up to 1 ounce when travelling and gift up to one ounce. Consumption in public remains illegal.
There's also the medical marijuana section which is the commercial regulation
The Following User Says Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
I would look to the model of Colorado. You can legally own and grow up to 6 plants for personal/recreational use. You can possess up to 1 ounce when travelling and gift up to one ounce. Consumption in public remains illegal.
There's also the medical marijuana section which is the commercial regulation
Ahh so the actual distribution of MJ is not commercialized (unless medical), and the legalization is just that you can grow your own for personal use, but not sell to others? What about the edible shops and such, are those technically for medical users only?
Doesn't that kind of circumvent the gains from taxes? If people businesses/people aren't selling it (legally), and just growing it on their own, there wouldn't be any tax revenue.
I would look to the model of Colorado. You can legally own and grow up to 6 plants for personal/recreational use. You can possess up to 1 ounce when travelling and gift up to one ounce. Consumption in public remains illegal.
There's also the medical marijuana section which is the commercial regulation
From what I understand, there are retail stores that sell recreational marijuana as well. They are the businesses where there is tax on marijuana. Medical users of marijuana are tax exempt if they have a medical card (or much lower taxed) as opposed to recreational purchases which provide the bulk of marijuana tax income.
OT from the current discussion - There are more dispensaries popping up here in Victoria. One is called Leaf which is on Yates Street. I went in to inquire about purchase last week whilst walking by and they offered me an 8 page application which required photo ID. I didn't feel comfortable about that at all, having that information on record. I couldn't take the application home to review either. I was told once filled out and accepted, I could purchase product in their upstairs showroom. I didn't need approval from a doctor. The local police are supportive but the feds, of course, not. RCMP busts would have access to those records.
OT from the current discussion - There are more dispensaries popping up here in Victoria. One is called Leaf which is on Yates Street. I went in to inquire about purchase last week whilst walking by and they offered me an 8 page application which required photo ID. I didn't feel comfortable about that at all, having that information on record. I couldn't take the application home to review either. I was told once filled out and accepted, I could purchase product in their upstairs showroom. I didn't need approval from a doctor. The local police are supportive but the feds, of course, not. RCMP busts would have access to those records.
Hmm interesting. Not sure how I feel about that either, unless it's for medical purposes and I'm getting some type of discount or able to have more because of it. Perhaps that's just because it's technically still illegal and they want to monitor who is purchasing in case their using seeds to grow and sell illegally. So this is the deal they make with the police there to not be shut down.
The question would be how searchable/public is that information? Would it come up on police background checks for employers, because that would probably be a big deterrent. Not a deterrent for smoking, a deterrent for purchasing legally. Which defeats the purpose, as you want to make it easier, safer and more desirable to purchase it legally than illegally, otherwise the process is useless.
OT from the current discussion - There are more dispensaries popping up here in Victoria. One is called Leaf which is on Yates Street. I went in to inquire about purchase last week whilst walking by and they offered me an 8 page application which required photo ID. I didn't feel comfortable about that at all, having that information on record. I couldn't take the application home to review either. I was told once filled out and accepted, I could purchase product in their upstairs showroom. I didn't need approval from a doctor. The local police are supportive but the feds, of course, not. RCMP busts would have access to those records.
Yeah, be careful what type of information trail you leave.
Apparently for people who legally use medical marijuana, insurance companies treat them like "smokers" and it affects their rates and coverage. It doesn't matter if you vape or consume edibles, for the purpose of insurance, they classify you as a "smoker". This may change in the future, who knows. But for now, I would avoid making any record of the fact that you consume marijuana in any fashion.
It would suck to get denied coverage one day because you declared yourself as a "non-smoker" on your insurance papers, but then they found a paper trail showing that you are a marijuana user.
Colorado resident here. Dispensaries are basically just like liquor stores, they just tend to operate in cash only because of issues with banks not wanting to hold their money (state law vs federal law etc). It is regulated very tightly. They do pay taxes on it, local growers sell to the dispensaries and pay taxes on that as well, 73.5 million in tax revenue through July this year alone.
I'm far from being some "legalize it bro" hippie but the system works and it works well. No different than booze.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Colorado resident here. Dispensaries are basically just like liquor stores, they just tend to operate in cash only because of issues with banks not wanting to hold their money (state law vs federal law etc). It is regulated very tightly. They do pay taxes on it, local growers sell to the dispensaries and pay taxes on that as well, 73.5 million in tax revenue through July this year alone.
I'm far from being some "legalize it bro" hippie but the system works and it works well. No different than booze.
Tell us about the hordes of stoned zombies that wander aimlessly at night. Are the children smoking joints in the school yards? Surely there must be hundreds of thousands of layabouts in the gutters around your once fine city.
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post: