nerve

I was actually chatting with an American last month about how they have police vans harvesting organs over there, and that they are in fact sold to people from the west places such as Canada. I didn't really beleive it, as who in Canada would be buying organs harvested in China for organ transplants over here. I do remember a tv show that documented the illegal organ trade in Pakistan years back though, people with three gallbladers etc.. paying like 10k etc.. per organ. I havn't seen it with my own eyes so I won't judge but this is pretty grizzly stuff. I think it is as bad as pedophile rings any day of the week. If it is a crime to rape a kid in some foreign country, it should also be illegal to take someones organ who was harvested substandard to Canadian law. Regardless of whether it is being done by the government or is legal in that other country. I think it is as morally questionable easily.

Am I missing something or are people considering Saudi Arabia a non-friendly state? First off the more the Saudi's spend the more oil goes up in price faster. Second you are assuming Saudi Arabia is actually going to do something with them that they can't do with arms acquired somewhere else. Chances are the only notable thing Saudi Arabia will ever do with them is defend against an Iranian invasion or somehow be involved in regional conflicts such as Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, that I am guessing Canada in general ain't opposed to because they are fighting Iranian influences which Canada has lined up against Iran time and time again. Saudi Arabia has done next to nothing with its military for years and years, and is now just starting to bomb Syria/ISIS. They are more than capable enforcing legal standards that are lower than Canada without these arms shipments. It is a totally irrelevant point. Canada's businesses can use the money. Saudi Arabia isn't under sanctions so this is a non debate. I am guessing Canada wouldn't export to any country because I'm sure they all engage in human rights abuses. And it wouldn't sell to itself because it engages in human rights abuses. Who cares.

Ok Derek 2.0, how is Canada planning for war? The US never moved out of Cheyenne Mountain. You don't know what you are talking about.

Wow, I was surprised to see such overt national socialism on mapleleaf web. No of course not, the Canadian government has no moral authority to nationalize anything but the resource sector. They do control the frequencies though, so technically can legally limit access and use to cellular frequencies. None the less if there was any way way forward they should make their own cellular network if they want one. What they do need to do though is stop requiring telephone numbers and mailing addresses to do business with government agencies. Phones arn't needed, much like the internet isn't needed. There is too much dependence on technology by government. It needs to downsize and simplify processes. It is just too big.

I think that there will be a continuation of defence policy and not much will get done other than token initiatives to tow a global standard as a second world power. I don't think there is any confusion that Canada's defence strategy is as part of a team so coordination with its allies is justly more vital than domestic considerations, since its power comes from strength in its many NATO allies. I think Canada is not really prepared for major events anymore, it is only preparing for small scale conflicts with third world nations and run of the mill small scale emergencies. You know I don't think they have a plan for something major like a massive H. EMP or something like Yellowstone going off. Much less for some type of war with Russia, not that we think that will happen, or some other form of nuclear event. Civil defence was far more focused on public preperadness, something that just doesn't exist anymore. I am not sure if there is any real survival for a real war. It is strange to think that the Canadian military really isn't planning for war anymore, only for use of force displays against weak untechnologically developed states. Like most aspects of government, I think we need to claw back on governent exclusivity and authority over various private matters such as self defence and security. What we have seen in other NATO countries that recognize the real potential of real war with a major state is that we need to enable the public to the ability to survive and thrive in the face of foreign invasion, Canada is still in denile of that, and until it recognizes that should be a primary defence priority it will still be acting as a global policeman instead of exercising the right of self defence under the UN charter.

Why leave Health to Feds it is a provincial area of responsibility. The only three things making pot Federal is 1. trade 2. criminal law 3. taxation If export is blocked or regulated they need to craft legislation for that. If there are restrictions on interprovincial commercial transport again. If there is some quantity or type that is still criminalized such as hash/hash oil potency over a certain amount for skunk weeds they need to address that. If they plan on taxing sales separate from existing sales models such as cigarettes or alcohol then they need to sort that out. Meanwhile the rest should be left to the provinces to sort out their individual needs to insure it is ok for communities at the local level and communities are not damaged by it but instead benefit. You know it might be wise to ban smoking pot in vehicles as a starter or making it illegal like driving with an open bottle. This may also protect people from being swabbed at the US/Can border and getting hit with possession charges for residue left in the vehicle or getting banned from entry to the US due to their hardlove approach if you have ever smoked pot. If they only police by it being a charge on record it may improve travel for Canadians however if they start swabbing vehicles or heavier use of drug sniffing dogs people are going to need to know not to smoke in their car ever. It will/would be interesting to see what sort of engagement CBP has with Canadians if it is legalized Currently http://www.ezbordercrossing.com/the-inspection-experience/prior-criminal-offenses/crimes-that-will-make-you-inadmissible-to-the-u-s/#.VuwZjuIrI1I

another big ruling. This time allowing people with a prescription to grow their own. This with another 6 month timer, meaning new legislation needs to be passed by the end of summer. http://torontoobserver.ca/2016/03/17/federal-judge-rules-patients-can-grow-own-marijuana/

This just in today, Ontario to get tough on Medical Pot, AND vaping... in public places. http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/03/10/ontario-government-to-clamp-down-on-vaping-and-medical-marijuana.html Meanwhile the Liqour stores are organizing a committee on sales... in New Brunswick, of course Ontario has been mulling selling the LCBO for years now... it would be even harder to make the sale if it is the fount of pot. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/marijuana-liquor-decriminalization-pharmacy-1.3482495 Of course this does present, the beginning of PROVINCIAL regulation, which is likely the provinces taking initiative on issues that would arise from legalization. The weird thing is you don't hear this in all the Drug education classes, they don't teach the medical dangers of drug interactions, instead they focus on social problems, that is a shame. However how does pot differ from Alcohol, isn't alcohol also a blood thinner, and sugar? The way it acts to amplify medications seems to almost scream, lower their dose and add a dose of pot. From Mayo Clinic. from web md I find the sedative warning hilarious. Pot makes them sleep too long when they are prescribed sedatives. I have the feeling pot could lower the amount of drugs needed to get the same effects, which would likely reduce medical sideeffects of other drugs which are far more dangerous than pot itself. This is also a whole lot of revenue that isn't being fed into criminal activities, which end up costing tax payers for repairs, restitution and incarceration costs. When you are talking 30 billion deficits, billions off that deficit is a good start. The longer it takes the longer sosaid criminals profit at the expense of lowering the public debt.

It is a joke with 3d printing and sintering techs they will be making whole planes for less than the cost of parts in 20 years. I think you are thinking "the old way" not the new way. The problem exists in the legal right to produce parts, not the physical ability to produce them. This is why I favour programs like the Dassault deal because it licenses production rights to Canada and sets up local producers which insures supply chain. You won't get that from any US aviation firm at all, they won't even let you look under the hood without permission. These jets won't be relevant in a decade let alone 40 years. However yes in fact if expensive planes are purchased in large quantities they are the last planes that will likely be bought for the next 20. It is arguable Canada will even exist in 30 years. This is why a deal that doesn't bind Canada on IP and unilateral parts reproduction and sourcing and modification is important. Canada should be selecting a jet it has the right to upkeep without paying out fees to the origin companies licensed companies. Canada should be free to keep these in the air on its own terms, not the parent companies terms, it is Canada's defence afterall Canada shouldn't be bound by international laws on how they are kept in the air.

He's not a lawyer what else is he going to do? Retire on a 20 year pension he said he wouldn't take? He will probably wait for his daughter to graduate before quiting politics in Ottawa unless he gets another job in Ottawa, it just makes sense. If she is 17 now then that is the end of this year or next. Not sure if she graduates this June or next. Outside of that, his loyalty to his consituents in Calgary would see him complete the term, likely perhaps before retiring since both his kids will be in University most likely. Which is a perfect time to retire on a 25 year parliamentary pension. I'm betting though he is comfortable in Stornoway. Oh right he's not the leader of the opposition my bad. Does he even have a house in Calgary anymore?

False dichotomy. In fact most controlled substances in Canada are not centrally controlled, they are restricted to certain individuals at the federal level. Generally control of substances at a federal level is limited to import/export and interprovincial transfer. The other aspect is to classify it at the food and drug level. You know sugar and coffee are drugs and they arn't required to be centrally controlled. This desire for control is based on the money to be made off of it, and a culture of demonization. In fact much like Alcohol and Tobacco, Marijuana is a provincial issue and there is actually no need for the Feds to do anything after removing it from the controlled drugs and substances act schedule. There is a desire to monetize it though, apparently. Not unlike selling spectrum airwaves to the highest bidder, this legalization process is all about control of the revenue streams. People arn't dying from pot anymore than they are coffee. In fact sugar is probably killing more people than pot. It just has a culture around it that is anti-establishment, and in part that is due to what arose out of the hippy movement, and what ended up in counter culture for decades, as an addition and alternative to the nightlife entertainment cultures. It was a recreational drug, and recreational drugs have a bad boy image. Now that people of those cultures are "OLD", they arn't going out, if they are even going for a stroll, and there is medical benefit the image of pot is contrasted as a Nanny medication. That old nanny may have been smoking in her younger days as entertainment. None the less, much like alcohol was a prescription medication it is all about how the drug is used, not the drug itself. That is second prong of allowing use. Medical costs. This is a proven drug for its CBD contents. As you may not be aware Pot has tons of good stuff in it, not just the carcinogens from smoking anything. Anyway THC and CBD are the who main ingredients of interest. THC is what gives those psychoactive drug like effects while CBD unlocks cannaboid receptors, that can work in concert with THC or on its own to have a variety of calming effects. Based upon the levels of all these ingredients the effects can can change. None the less pot is a proven medicine, and self medication lowers the cost of over prescription within the medical system, especially with an aging population.I'm not saying all the old timers are going to pick up potting like their forefathers took up smoking pipe tobacco, but there will be some associated lower cost associated with use of marijuana in the public, especially among seniors. The controls don't need to be on access but rather on use. We don't need to send people to jail for self medication. We have to recognize the issue is that the establishment does not like counter culture, and it does not openly support illicit nightlife trades, historically. Of course we are seeing an erosion on previous issues linked to prostitution, once illicit activities are harm reduced the problems and opposition will not be as strong. Moral law is secondary to law of ethical treatment and respect for human rights. It is now about people's human rights, not about moral codes that are sectarian being forced on secular society. It is about taming culture removing the harms from society through regulation instead of fighting loosing wars. Controlling the problem is better than not having control of the problem. http://seniordirectory.com/articles/info/10-things-seniors-should-know-about-medical-marijuana https://medicalmarijuana.ca/news/0/306 http://www.theprovince.com/health/Medical+marijuana+helps+senior+sleep+contend+with+other+problems+aging/8439474/story.html I do have a second line here in that I don't think I should have to have someone else to tell me if I can treat my own ailments. I should be able to care for myself, I should not have someone else have ownership over me, whether the government or their appointed agent, this is suppose to be a free society. You know if I was the Federal government after unscheduling it, my first step would be to distribute free low THC high CBD seeds to anyone who requested them. You know government has mailouts for elections and tax forms and checks. In fact they should be mailing out low THC seeds to everyone who is interested. The only way this battle will be won is to take the skunk away from normal use, and to get low THC high CBD variant into the public for easy access and use. http://www.leafscience.com/2014/02/23/5-must-know-facts-cannabidiol-cbd/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol In fact I would say instead of printing out or wasting time on anti-pot propaganda, I would instead use those funds to distribute high cbd seeds to the public.

Well no it is an ideal job, this doesn't mean they arn't pursueing other jobs while also being on supply lists. Their life is not made easier by it though. As for fault do you say its a reservists fault for volunteering to fight wars. These are sacrifices. Some people do get those dream teaching positions. They are public servants who are contributing to society. A B.A. or B.S. etc.. and a B.Ed are not only usable for teaching but that is what the B.Ed training is geared toward. If people simply didn't pursue teaching because only 1 in 3 of them would get the job that is like no longer having people train to go to space because you know they all wouldn't get to go. You need the talent base and competition otherwise you don't get the most experienced to do the job. So no the solution is not to stop dreaming, the solution is to recognize the dreamers and people who sacrifice for Ontario. You know some people do give up on that dream. Ok and they are allowed to do that, what is the issue. If the board doesn't want them as supply teacher's they don't need to take them. The fact is, that is the board's decision, that is their chosen administrator's decision, and they want them. If you don't agree then run as a board trustee because the ones who get the public vote to make those decisions don't have a problem with getting very experienced teachers to do that. Supply teaching is a sacrifice, it is not "a job".

What about a governor general advisory committee. You know does all recommends appointments and recommends to the GG on gives advise on giving ascension to laws etc.. Could make them privy counsellors and call it a day without mucking up parliament. Just make them an executive council, Make x number of seats and split them up among the political parties based on total votes in the federal election. Call them "executive privy councellors of the Queens council of Canada" You know you could pass a bill such as The Queen's Executive Privy Council of Canada Act. and there you have it. Party rule instead of representation by election. Each party would submit their ranked candidates at the time of the election and vacancies would be filled from these order of succession lists. It would be advisable to insure representation a minority of the seats would be available for major second level parties such as christain heritage, and any others that exist so unrepresented people still had voice. Meanwhile get on with making senate byelections when seats become available. You could also make the Queen's Executive Privy Council Popular Review Standing Comittee that is elected from the whole of the Canadian population based upon total votes they receive individually. Then people who get votes can vote on and discuss decisions of the Queen's Executive Privy Council to insure figurative popular opinion meets with party objectives. If both agree then the matter is thereby advised to the Govenor General. There would be two paths to action 1 through parliamentary review for review of assent and appointments of parliament. and 2 those regarding the executive functions of government headed under the governor general. They could be paid like 1 dollar per vote they get as their election cycle salary for the standing committee. Meanwhile for the executive council the party would get to decide to pay their representatives or pocket the per vote per diem in the general election. They would be able to function as a not for profit and collect donations for costs associate with fullfilling the position. You know like political party donations to use to do political functions in effecting political policies.

Well in fact teachers do have preparation days over the summer break also. What you fail to understand that in fact teachers prepare for the coming year over the summer break. This means perparing lessons. What happens is the board has its guidelines the teachers then need to plan their teaching strategies for the coming year. They will sort out what students they have, how many and plan accordingly. They may need to secure materials. These materials may be kept centrally with the board, or may have to be procured by the teacher. Then there is meeting with the department heads or head teachers, VP's etc.. where they exist to get approval for course materials and to go over tests where tests have been standardized by the head for everyone. There is actually quite a bit to do. Once the school year starts getting behind can be disastrous for newer teachers so getting a head start is always advisable. As teacher's grow in years of teaching they tend to hone in on their knowledge of what they are teaching and how to best approach it. So even if a teacher doesn't have a PD or PA day often over the summer they are doing things to prepare for the coming year. Teaching could be a stressful job depending on the behaviour of students in your class. You have to understand that teachers are often on call for years and years before they get a full time teaching position. During those day they have to make themselves available anytime they get called in for supply teaching this means having a job you can call in and say you won't be in today to so you can go substitute teach when you get the chance. This is not a job many people just apply for and get after 6 years of undergrad studies. After they spend years to get their degree and finish their professional teaching years, they then are put on a wait list for years. Eventually they may get a full time job others don't ever get full time teaching gigs as there is a lot of competition. Many teacher's sacrifice a large part of their younger years waiting for a job teaching full time. You need to take that into consideration of the actual job the fact that they have often woke up to check supply lists for years and years at 6 in the morning or whatnot to see if they have work that day as a teacher. People tend to concentrate on the end result of years of dedication to the profession that gives next to no rewards. It makes a lot of sense to rotate these days rotating tenured administrators and bring in substitute teachers on these days. You know teachers are doing more than teaching course materials but being adult role models to students. Having real world experiences so they can relate to students is part of repoire that makes good teachers. A happy teacher is a good teacher.

False the US criminalized marijuana before Canada. Canada criminalized hash at the same time as US from the 1923 convention, which came into effect in 1925. Marijuana was a US problem and criminalized at the state level in the US Criminal law in Canada is only FEDERAL, the US has both state and federal criminal law. US criminalization came as early as 1913 in the US at the state level a full decade before Canada. Definitively it was legislated against when the Mormons made their rules into law in Utah in 1915. It was American culture that both brought pot and criminalized it. You clearly do not know the facts on your own country on this issue. Now you are suppose to go blame Mexican immigrants for your problems.

You know the psychology involved is fantastic. Broke and Miserable or more Broke and happy. There are people out there will rather have lived and died than never lived at all. What is the solution? Lets talk about solutions not problems. The solution is finding ways to make people happy without involving money. You know when it comes down to it, money is not borrowed and spent, it is borrowed and given away. From what they give away other stuff to other people. Big gov = big problems for peoples pocket books. services services services. What is the solution. The problem comes with the fact you don't want your money given away to other people. It is who is getting the money and stuff that matters, not the fact it is happening with that logic. It happened. Now what? And why didn't past govs fix that problem? Clearly what they did wasn't liked so they got booted out. People don't care because they get what they want. Its the people who arn't getting what they want, or don't like giving stuff to people that are not happy. Oh the rich are so hard done by, not. The real ones with brains ARE MAKING MONEY OFF LENDING MONEY. You know what, is it taxes pissing off the rich or is it loans which will make everyone happy. What is the problem exactly? It is slow death, but atleast everyone is happy until the gov collapses. Until then, I doubt it will change. the debt is just too large to --be managed now it is past the point of no return. (even at 50% GDP) there is still a good 20 or so years to go though, no worries. You know with this 2016 budget they are providing free education more or less, and taking care of seniors. It is socialist it could be worse none the less people with money will be giving more of that money away. Now if only all money the gov used was loans, you know everyone paying taxes instead just loaned the gov in a form of bond or perpetuity you know you get a portion of that back each year. Then right there retirement costs would go down and people would think they were getting something. There is a retirement plan and end to taxes, and a solution to moral loans. End taxes turn taxes into loans just like the rich have. It is all about moving money around, is it the best fiscal solution no, clearly they think it is a working political solution, afterall it is politics not finance. It really ain't right to be using taxes to subsidize the rich not fair at all. We should all be given the same treatment in turning taxes into loans. You know when people use certain government services that loan is automatically paid back for those costs. A much more socially ethical system. There is no good reason for only lenders to be getting returns on government costs. Oh but then people would be forced to give more in general 35 billion is still only about 10000$ per person, that is 20 $500 bonds. The whole method of paying for government programs is backwards. Like it is ridiculous that the gov is paying out 12 billion a year to the rich when it could be paying out 12 billion a year to taxloan payers which would more evenly redistribute ROI to all taxpayers not just the rich who can write off money they loan out. You know if you make a Ponzi scheme atleast the public should be the beneficiaries. It is a death spiral. Luckily the oldest people die first and they are at the top. Isn't that what pensions programs are all about? You know atleast you keep people happy until they die. If there are shortfalls you just cut off the top with things like health services. Death spiral.

only 60 years later. The US was over 60 years before that. You are a deceiver. Stop trying to mislead people it is shameful. Get real we all know Canada is the follower lapdog to US policy historically not the otherway around The History of Anti-Cannabis goes back to US Cotton monopolization of textile industries. See also big oil and the pot ban http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/pot/blunderof37.html That is right the first charge for possession of marijuana was in 1937 in Canada. Oh coincidence Now perhaps we can look at the INTERNATIONAL league of nations powers that pushed it internationally who per se was pushing the drug ban at the league. Now bear in mind paritcularly during the date in question Canadian policy was far more tied in with British law, it was clearly American influences that led to the banning of pot in Canada, not Canadian ones as Canadian citizenship didn't even exist in law until the 1950's, and Canada didn't pass its own law until the 1980's. What can we deduce from all this. In fact it was the Morman's who started making pot illegal in North America not Canadians. In fact it was the reformist movement that perpetuated from the US which also lead to the prohibition of alcohol and the 18th Ammendment. No it was not Canada that lead the way on a ban on pot, it was a US brainchild. In fact it was not POT at all that was sought to be banned, it was HASH. In fact they banned the pot plant because it was used to make HASH, not due to smoking pot. The science behind this was faulty also. Canadians did not smoke pot in 1923. In fact the bans in 1923 were surrounding hashish not smoking pot. Canadians didn't smoke pot in 1923. As we can see the "growth" of problem drug use in Canada coincides with US copy cat culture, whereby the government was seriously dealing with it when Britain passed the misuese of drugs act in 1971. It was american culture, and it was in fact the US that started making it illegal in North America, not Canada. Get your facts staright. You plumping down a law that wasn't even about smoking pot as evidence Canada led the way. Get real. Pot smoking culture came from Mexico into the Southern US, and spread from there. The International drug prohibitions in the 1920's were about hashish, not smoking pot, but about the resin. Mexico We really shouldn't confuse smoking pot and smoking hash. You know this is another reason why maximum potency per gram should be considered. None the less the migration is clearly one that came from the old world to Caribean and Mexico then spread into the Southern states from Mexico. Then it gain traction into Canada in the 1960s. Clearly it is undeniable that the US started the push to legislate against pot for various reasons that were specific US political interests. There was next to no issues until the US hippy movement hit in the post war period. Of course the reform movement targetted a lot of things, but we should not confuse pot and hash, they are from the same plant, but they are not the same drug. So your position of Canada making pot illegal in 1923 are not based upon fact. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hashish_vs_Marijuana In fact the WHOLE GLOBAL pot prohibition stems from Mr. Hamilton Wright, an American from California. Get your facts straight. Likewise all enforcement in Canada stems from American enforcement actions and American cultural influences which police felt the need to respond to in Canada. Here is the letter that started it all. Canadian Racism against immigrants as the source of pot criminality I THINK NOT.. it was AMERICAN RACISM AGAINST IMMIGRANTS. The KKK came from the US get your facts straight. As usual the USA was #1 on this issue a good 10 years ahead of Canada. The horse leads the cart. Thankfully to this issue the US has started legalizing pot so I am sure Canada is not far behind.

Seems like at this rate, with delivery time frames could be off by only a few years before the next Generation is rolling out

I am not sure if this was touched on in the discussion I did not read but, Whiping is a course an issue however legislating something the courts have already ruled on is not controversial. Trying to redraft legislation to overide court ruling is problematic. Oh and people always have the choice to be in the party or not. They have the ability to leave any time they want. Life is a fundamental right. Fundamental right can be surrendered by consent but not forced from us not withstanding, for example military service.

This article had me do a bit of a double check. Wow with a title like "dope will not be decriminalized" is pretty harsh. http://www.straight.com/news/648421/justin-trudeau-warns-marijuana-laws-havent-changed-yet-adds-decriminalization-not-going Meanwhile in Detroit http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/99383921-story Why is it that the country that forced Canada to make pot illegal has made it more legal than Canada has?

Normally they poll the military on these things. generally the Canadian air force has two missions #1: defence as part of NORAD = being able to communicate with Norad, as well as operate in all of Canada's climates i.e. maritime and arctic and in mountains and over land, with the capability to effectively engage in intercept of Russian bear bombers or anything else the Russians throw over the Atlantic, or other missile intercept operations. #2: Participate in international operations under the guise of UN peacekeepering operations, or so as to lend support to NATO operations where a nato member has been attacked. In general these roles call for a defensive fighter, with ground strike capability. Canada doesn't have the appetite for regime change like the US does, it has more or less been dragged along by the US, UK and France for years on this stuff. It is a waste of resources. Nato/US has been outright invading and topling governments without apparent cause other than kicking them while they are down. That really isn't a defensive strategy outside of Israel. You know something like a F-16 air superiority fighter, or Su35/47pakfa etc.. might be more useful than a strike fighter to Canada's actual needs. Oddly most Russian Arctic jets will likely work fine in Canada too, and they are cheaper. Doubt it would happen but it is sort of logical. I'd love to see the Russians put in their new fighter into the competition. That thing is looking really good operationally, even without its upgrade engine. None the less an open bid would be great. Of course it will come down to issues like supply and carryover interoperability. None the less I still think the French defence industry development in Canada has been the best deal on the table so far. I think if the Russians were taken seriously and put in a bid they would win if the decision didn't become a political one. http://tinyurl.com/j6y7624 If it wasn't a political decision there is no way the f35 would win due to cost. You know the #1 issue right now is the delivery deadline. You know who can make deliveries before 2025.

To be honest I don't have a lot of spirit to reply but to address your comment "the Canadian Wheat Board would not have lasted as long as it did. " the wheat board is all about federal regulation of trade, it was about getting a better price for grain, and insuring that the economy was protected by insuring farmers were given access to market. Canada would only be in a position to traffic pot to countries where pot was legal.There would of course be secondary market potentials as hemp is usable for a lot of stuff also, and I would think hemp fibre from grow ops would find a place in textile and other industries as a non drug based byproduct. (bear in mind there is currently not a large market in north america for hemp production but there are potentials, and pot is really easy to grow, in fact it would provide a textile base for Canada where cotton is not viable) I think laws like administering a noxious substance, etc.. should already cover abusive / criminal applications of the plant. Are there applications that are not covered under other criminal law? You know if it is child abuse or endangerment to provide pot then lets treat it as that rather than it being pot that is the problem, lets deal with the abuse issue. We could alter providing alchohol to minors to be providing chemicals to minors that negatively effect health or welbeing of the minor. or treat it as a summary offense for administering a noxious substance because that is what pot and alcohol are in sufficient quantities. You know prove it The drugs and substances act is all about making drugs illegal to possess and traffic, in general that would no longer apply for pot. So with a piece meal approach removing it from the schedule and letting provinces pass their own local controls allows the local will to be fulfilled. These could be similar measures to anti-smoking and licensed sales provisions that already exist. You know if someone causes someones death call it manslaughter. We don't need to attack objects when we can attack actions and mindsets. The Canadian public has from at least places that voted liberal opted for legalization. It is about time that provinces that had liberal votes to call for referendums on the issue, or to consult with their constituents on how to proceed with regulating marijuana. The key point I need to make is that the libs should just remove it from the schedule on a prior agreed date and tell the provinces, deal with it. Pass your laws you need to, to regulate it provincially, it will no longer be criminal on X date, it will be up to you to regulate it, bear in mind medical access has already been upheld, as has medicinal growing. You can fine, you can sell it but you can't send people to jail for having it. In the end this is exactly what is going to happen if it is being decriminalized. It is just a question if the rules should be the same everywhere. That didn't happen to alcohol or tobacco, so why should it happen with pot. You know I think the federal govt should ship this stuff by Canada Post, so that medical marijuana people have a catalogue and access to delivery, via a safe and secure transport medium. It makes sense if provinces choose to pass prohibition laws on it. There is really no reason why this needs to be a federal decision on how it is going to be accessible. It is really in fact, I have very strong compelling ideas that in fact it is a provincial matter once decriminalized, except as the inter-provincial transport is involved, as well as supreme court rulings on access for medical purposes, but this would be a regulation of the food and drug canada act on how it is to be treated. You know if this stuff has health issues deal with it as it is. You can tell people if you eat oak tree leaves in sufficient quantity you will die but they opt to smoke them, at no point is it illegal, so why not with pot too? If people want to package oak tree leaves and sell them, it becomes a food and drug commercial issue if unsafe then a recall can be ordered. Ultimately provinces need to craft rules that make it accessible. In fact it may just be a end of term treat to get people to vote liberal again, but in fact the longer the liberals sit on this, the more people get screwed over by enforcement of pot laws. Jail and criminal records greatly damages peoples lives this isn't child play, it is a serious matter. Why not scrap all drug laws and do the noxious substance thing. Lets stop blaming the material and start blaming the intentions and criminal minds. Bear in mind there is a federal minimum smoking age in addition to a provincial one. You know places like reserves and territories will need to be managed by the federal government or local government in those areas. Other than this its not really a federal issue beyond regulation like any other plant. This is a popular plant, there are way worse plants for people. You know people have been using cannabis for thousands of years, and it has bloomed into a cultural idea that lots of people don't fear, they embrace and seek out, even with sanctions by society. You know places in south america eat the coca plant, they don't all snort cocaine. It is all about managing culture when it comes to substance issues. Lets face it the strategy over the past century hasn't worked, in terms of crime fighting, it is not going to work, so we should confront the culture of use, and take it from one associated with crime and turn it into something about positive social interactions, to create harm reduction strategies and education programs that don't turn people against the law. Prohibitions don't stop people, they create mission creep to engineer criminals who commit crimes beyond what is being prohibited.

What makes more money to sell.... raw or diluted? What is the ROI? What I am wondering is what makes more money, selling by pipeline or selling by railline?

Of course there is the other way. Just removing it from the controlled drugs and substances act, and seeing if the provinces regulate it as a good. If there are health risk, what about the courts regulating it through lawsuits, or the food and drug safety type act. In all honesty it would just make total sense to let the provinces handle making regulations on it as it is more of a civil matter than criminal, if that is the premise. Either it is going to go ahead or it ain't. Personally if this was up to me I'd just strike it and call it a day at the federal level. Afterall what does pot fall under if not criminal law? It just looks like it is a provincial issue constitutionally if it ain't criminal. It is clearly a provincial issue

Like them saying that or showing evidence of that? Cops/Gov employees saying something happened is not sufficient evidence to prove anything, especially when we are talking about someone elses knowledge of something. Police lie more often than tell the whole truth. I have no knowledge of the IRS or DEA. While the RCMP is one of the better police agencies I have encountered, police in general should never be trusted unless you will die anyway if not using their information. Much like the Night of Long Knives, information can be forged, so documents in themselves are not sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only something that illicits suspicion, much like agents reporting something. You need to have all elements of a crime to provide for reasonable grounds to proceed with charges. As far as conspiracy by not reporting, in fact, there is no reporting requirement except for acts such as treason. While a moral duty does exist, there is not a legal duty to report crimes. As I am not a crown prosecutor, I would not be likely to prosecute. However, I think it would be notable to prosecute if grounds existed, a former PM should not be treated any different than anyone else in a society of equals. As far as letters are concerned, Ministers and MPs rarely answer their own mail, especially senior members, usually it is political aids / csis etc.. that do their mail readings. Then the aids will compile information that they have been told to filter to them. If there is a reply then sometimes the minister will sign off on it, reply to it, while at other times it will be their aid, it depends on the letter and who is writing and for what purpose. As for contacting the PM about legal issues, it in general is not his place. Contacting the RCMP, about a drug ring would make more sense. Of course someone can go to a courthouse and press charges by filing an information on specific indictable offences. I am not sure why someone would write the PM about a crime? Is the PM even a peace officer. Also that information, turns into hearsay as soon as it goes from a source to another person. I think that it would be likely that the person who sent the letter would be replied to instructing them to contact police to report a crime if they so desired, as it is not the position of the government to give private persons legal advice and the police and ministry are independent of one another.