getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chemgear

$$$




B.C. Premier David Eby said he’s astonished that the federal Health Department gave the green light to a Langley cannabis company to produce, sell, and distribute cocaine.

When asked by a reporter about the approval, Eby slammed Health Canada for not consulting B.C. before granting the company approval to produce cocaine.

“If Health Canada did in fact do this, they did it, not only without engaging with the province, but without notice to us,”

Michael Forbes, CEO of Adastra, said in a statement the company “will evaluate how the commercialization of (cocaine) fits in with our business model at Adastra in an effort to position ourselves to support the demand for a safe supply of cocaine.”

Haha, and they're public. They have to be the only publicly traded company that can sell cocaine?

[TorqueDog]

Legal cocaine?

Red Deer, your boom time is now!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, and they're public. They have to be the only publicly traded company that can sell cocaine?

*Purdue Pharma looks on jealously*

[rubecube]

Beyond the jokes, money, and whatnot, there are a lot of good reasons to have a company in Canada manufacture cocaine.

1. It takes money out of the pockets of the cartels.
2. Reduces overdoses by ensuring that the product is safe.
3. Allows for more research opportunities.

#3 is a big one. Obviously cocaine isn't safe. The biggest health concerns beyond addiction, are the obvious problems associated with any kind of insulfated substance, heart problems, and sudden respiratory arrest (usually when combined with alcohol).

If our health agencies and research teams could find a way to synthesize a version of it that reduces or eliminates some of the health risk, it's an obvious win for everyone.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Beyond the jokes, money, and whatnot, there are a lot of good reasons to have a company in Canada manufacture cocaine.

1. It takes money out of the pockets of the cartels.
2. Reduces overdoses by ensuring that the product is safe.
3. Allows for more research opportunities.

#3 is a big one. Obviously cocaine isn't safe. The biggest health concerns beyond addiction, are the obvious problems associated with any kind of insulfated substance, heart problems, and sudden respiratory arrest (usually when combined with alcohol).

If our health agencies and research teams could find a way to synthesize a version of it that reduces or eliminates some of the health risk, it's an obvious win for everyone.

Syntheblow...like Synthehol in Star Trek!

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Syntheblow...like Synthehol in Star Trek!

Synthe-snow.

But kind of like what happened with legalized marijuana. A little more watered down than what was available pre-legalization, but basically appeases the majority of users; created new businesses and revenue streams; and pretty much everybody is happy.

[JohnnyB]

So, when does Coke switch back to the old recipe?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

So, when does Coke switch back to the old recipe?

The one with real sugar, or the one with real coke?

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Basket tech has come a long way.

Anyways, my point is more just that public transportation is for the public, and if there are routes where members of the public have a need of something like transporting bags of bottles then it's good to try accommodating them in a way that doesn't cause issues for other riders. That's basically what the bike racks do.

I would use this service, beats the wife's hatchback smelling like stale beer for a week after a trip to the bottle depot.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I would use this service, beats the wife's hatchback smelling like stale beer for a week after a trip to the bottle depot.

Skipthedepot my friend

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Beyond the jokes, money, and whatnot, there are a lot of good reasons to have a company in Canada manufacture cocaine.

1. It takes money out of the pockets of the cartels.
2. Reduces overdoses by ensuring that the product is safe.
3. Allows for more research opportunities.

#3 is a big one. Obviously cocaine isn't safe. The biggest health concerns beyond addiction, are the obvious problems associated with any kind of insulfated substance, heart problems, and sudden respiratory arrest (usually when combined with alcohol).

If our health agencies and research teams could find a way to synthesize a version of it that reduces or eliminates some of the health risk, it's an obvious win for everyone.

I want to have an open mind about this, and sure as ####, the current "strategy", whatever it is, is not working.

But, when it comes to substances like cocaine, heroin or crystal meth, I do not think doing what you're suggesting is a great idea only because of just how addictive they are. These substances are substantially different from marijuana or even alcohol from an addictive standpoint, aren't they?

Would significant resources going into early education about the dangers of the addictive and life destroying nature of these drugs be a better use of money? Kids from a very young age should be being taught in school maybe a little more aggressively just how bad these substances are.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I want to have an open mind about this, and sure as ####, the current "strategy", whatever it is, is not working.

But, when it comes to substances like cocaine, heroin or crystal meth, I do not think doing what you're suggesting is a great idea only because of just how addictive they are. These substances are substantially different from marijuana or even alcohol from an addictive standpoint, aren't they?

Would significant resources going into early education about the dangers of the addictive and life destroying nature of these drugs be a better use of money? Kids from a very young age should be being taught in school maybe a little more aggressively just how bad these substances are.

I dont know how much that actually matters. How many kids did you know who smoked and drank in High School?

We know how bad those things are, now they can smoke weed and eventually do coke and once their cash runs low they can switch it up to meth.

Maybe the legalization will make it totally uncool and they'll do something else instead. Except that didnt really apply to smokes and booze so who knows.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I want to have an open mind about this, and sure as ####, the current "strategy", whatever it is, is not working.

But, when it comes to substances like cocaine, heroin or crystal meth, I do not think doing what you're suggesting is a great idea only because of just how addictive they are. These substances are substantially different from marijuana or even alcohol from an addictive standpoint, aren't they?

Would significant resources going into early education about the dangers of the addictive and life destroying nature of these drugs be a better use of money? Kids from a very young age should be being taught in school maybe a little more aggressively just how bad these substances are.

Having recently witnessed multiple people getting over cocaine addictions, I would say that the current barriers surrounding their procurement are a good thing. Even the 1-3 hours, it took for them to call and meet their "guy" was enough of a barrier to slow them down. Having cocaine simply available at a store around the corner, would have been pretty devastating.

Cocaine is a strange drug, in that I know lots of people who've used it recreationally and never had any issues. However, a percentage really get hooked. The percentage of people who get hooked seems to be several times higher than those who become alcoholics. It's enough that having cocaine widely available would have a pretty dramatic effect on society.

As for heroin and crystal meth, those drugs are so addictive that the only solution is to try and do everything to make them more difficult to attain. Safe supply is a great idea, but only so far as it should not in any way be made available to the general public.

[Cycling76er]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The one with real sugar, or the one with real coke?

Yes.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The one with real sugar, or the one with real coke?

Technically they never moved away from Coca-Cola with real sugar entirely, just in the US and Canadian markets. Mexican Coca-Cola is cane sugar instead of HFCS.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Technically they never moved away from Coca-Cola with real sugar entirely, just in the US and Canadian markets. Mexican Coca-Cola is cane sugar instead of HFCS.

Yes, well not residing in Mexico makes acquiring it rather difficult.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, well not residing in Mexico makes acquiring it rather difficult.

Not really.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, well not residing in Mexico makes acquiring it rather difficult.

It actually isn't that difficult. You can buy flats of it at the Wholesale Club and Costco carried it previously but I haven't looked for it in a while so I don't know if they still do. Some grocery stores also have Mexican coke and if those options don't work the Mexican grocery stores in Calgary all have it. I'm a big fan of Mexican Coke.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, well not residing in Mexico makes acquiring it rather difficult.

I've been told that Costco carries the "real sugar" Coke in glass bottles... Can anyone confirm?

Edit - Beat to the punch.

BTW, Coca Cola's where to buy is a nice touch.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It actually isn't that difficult. You can buy flats of it at the Wholesale Club and Costco carried it previously but I haven't looked for it in a while so I don't know if they still do. Some grocery stores also have Mexican coke and if those options don't work the Mexican grocery stores in Calgary all have it. I'm a big fan of Mexican Coke.

My neighborhood circle K carries it as well.