Prince of Pot extradited

GostHacked · May 25, 2010

That is completely false. There are over 1200 white tailed deer in Winnipeg....On Oasis HD, there was a program that stated that there are more animals within Toronto now than there were 500 years ago. Hunting isn't allowed in cities because it's dangerous.

If you consider pets (cats dogs birds) and pests (racoons, skunks, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits) then you might be correct. There are generally no big game roaming the streets of any major city.

Besides, it's not like marijuana isn't readily available. And it's not like you can't smoke it, in the privacy of your own home anytime you want. You just can carry in around with you, smoking it in public. Kind of like ALCOHOL!

It is readily available. It's not hard to find pot. I can spend a few minutes downtown and find a source.

bush_cheney2004 · May 25, 2010

.....It was conclusive that in general non-smokers didn't want to go to clubs anyway! What's more, attendance went DOWN and not UP when smoking was totally banned! Clubs had been struggling from other factors as well and the non-smoking rules seemed to be just the final straw. They started going bankrupt in droves!

This is true in the experience of Las Vegas or Atlantic City style casino gaming as well....it seems that hard core vices like to party together (smoking, gambling, drinking, stripping, snorting, prostituting, etc.). The state of Nevada has never upheld a worker's compensation claim for illness and death caused by secondhand exposure to smoke, as this would bankrupt the compensation fund in short order. The state's supreme court rejected a correlation to coal miners and "black lung" disease. Clearly political interests are in play for such decisions. One of the early smoking ban activists lost her case and life to secondhand smoke:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/26/cheryl-rose-casino-worker-who-helped-mount-brief-c/

DrGreenthumb · May 25, 2010

Actually, while they weren't as expensive as you implied they were still not cheap. Casinos and bars/clubs used them for years and they worked great!

There was an issue a decade or so ago in Hamilton where clubs invested in such ventilation systems to keep the air "pure" in the non-smoking areas. However, despite promises from the local politicians that the status quo would be maintained for some years the local council suddenly up and enforced total non-smoking!

This meant that all those clubs had spent the money on ventilation systems for nothing! They had no time to recover their investment and essentially it was a dead loss. That hurt!

As a matter of interest, while the clubs ran with smoking and non-smoking areas at no time did anyone ever see the non-smoking areas full and the smoking areas empty! You ALWAYS saw a full up smoking area with a line up to get in while the non-smoking area held only a few patrons!

It was pretty obvious that non-smokers were not fervent patrons of the clubs anyway. Perhaps it was the music. Their tastes may have run more towards Walter Ostanek. Whatever, when the scene became totally non-smoking we did NOT see a big increase in non-smokers coming out now that the air was "pure"! Rather, what we saw was pretty well just the smokers, who would run out to the alleys between sets to grab a puff. Within a few years, their numbers started to decline. They drifted away to other forms of entertainment where they could also indulge their habit.

It was conclusive that in general non-smokers didn't want to go to clubs anyway! What's more, attendance went DOWN and not UP when smoking was totally banned! Clubs had been struggling from other factors as well and the non-smoking rules seemed to be just the final straw. They started going bankrupt in droves!

Politicians became very embarrassed. They had bought the line that non-smoking rules meant that thousands of non-smokers who only stayed away from clubs and music because of the smoke would come out in herds to fill non-smoking clubs. The club industry would be even healthier, making downtown areas fun and filling municipal tax coffers!

No one mentioned that non-smokers never came out to the non-smoking areas before, no matter how well ventilated.

So here in Hamilton they threw a bone, allowing clubs to stay open till 2:00 AM instead of 1:00. Big deal! Now the owners had to stay open to an empty house for an extra hour!

This was a decade ago and things have recovered a slight amount. The scene seems stable, although nowhere near as large as it used to be. With non-smokers not filling in the slack, you have to wonder why they did all the bitching! It only makes sense if the real goal was never to protect non-smokers from passive smoke but rather to remove places where smoking could be practiced.

Clubs featuring cover bands and dancing had been a thriving form of entertainment for over a century. Now it is a shadow of its former self. Some clubs do remain but in my mind they are not as "healthy" in other areas but smoking. We see mostly hiphop clubs where odds are high that someone will shoot someone else with an illegal gun (likely unregistered!) or techopop 'raves' where a girl has to watch her drink to be sure someone doesn't spike it with a 'date rape' drug. Oh well, at least there's no passive smoke!

Ned Flanders won another one!

That is a very good summation Wild Bill, and that has happened all across this country, and has also hurt emerging artists who used to play in those clubs a lot more than internet downloading ever will. A couple of my friends that owned clubs went bankrupt because people just started getting their beer at the vendor and having house parties where they could smoke. You are also correct that it seems to have hurt the bars with live entertainment the worst. Because of good education about the dangers of smoking, less and less young people are taking up the habit, so the ban doesn't affect the hip-hop bars as much. On the very rare occasion that I go into the local bars nowadays for a game of pool or two, all I see are very small groups of people, usually huddled around the VLT's gambling their money away between trips outside for a smoke. I almost never see a non-smoker in any of the bars in this community, and the community is small enough that YES I DO know who is and isn't a smoker. Smoking tobacco is terribly unhealthy, and the government SHOULD educate people as to that fact, but in a free country we should be allowed to make our decisions even if they are unhealthy or risky ones.

wyly · May 25, 2010

There are generally no big game roaming the streets of any major city.

in my neighborhood any day of the week I can walk a block to the park and find herds of White Tailed deer they can often be spotted foraging in gardens and this is in a city of a million plus people...as well we get the occasional cougar, moose, bear and a couple of years back a wolf in my neighbours backyard...

following the loony reasoning of some on this forum I should demand my freedom to hunt with in the city screw the safety of others and their freedom to live in safety... :rolleyes:

Edited May 25, 2010 by wyly

maple_leafs182 · May 25, 2010

following the loony reasoning of some on this forum I should demand my freedom to hunt with in the city screw the safety of others and their freedom to live in safety...

do you think pot is a danger to society.

wyly · May 25, 2010

do you think pot is a danger to society.

no more than beer probably much less, definitely not as toxic as cigarettes...I would want to see a study done on pot use and operating a car and if there is there needs to be simple roadside test to address that issue... Edited May 25, 2010 by wyly

GostHacked · May 25, 2010

Again, this fall-back argument rings hollow, because there are so many more dangerous things that we allow that cost our health care system just as much or more. We allow skydiving,.....

On a side note.

Skydiving was the most insane and exhilarating experience of my life. Loved every second of it. I've done my share of drugs, but add that all up and it falls way short of the single experience that is skydiving. I 'highly' recommend it.

And if you happen to survive a skydiving mishap, you won't incurring any medical costs besides your trip to the morgue. You sign your life away when you do something like this, so don't expect to sue if you do get hurt.

wyly · May 25, 2010

On a side note.

Skydiving was the most insane and exhilarating experience of my life. Loved every second of it. I've done my share of drugs, but add that all up and it falls way short of the single experience that is skydiving. I 'highly' recommend it.

And if you happen to survive a skydiving mishap, you won't incurring any medical costs besides your trip to the morgue. You sign your life away when you do something like this, so don't expect to sue if you do get hurt.

survivors go to the morgue?

but the chance of you hurting someone who doesn't have your interest in recreational skydiving are slim to none...

if your job included sky diving as a requirement there would be safety procedures in place you'd insist on it...and not everyone is killed in skydiving, injuries are not uncommon and should they happen in the line of your work you would be compensated...

GostHacked · May 25, 2010

survivors go to the morgue?

D'oh !!! I knew it did not sound right after I read it!!!

but the chance of you hurting someone who doesn't have your interest in recreational skydiving are slim to none...

Very true.

if your job included sky diving as a requirement there would be safety procedures in place you'd insist on it...and not everyone is killed in skydiving, injuries are not uncommon and should they happen in the line of your work you would be compensated...

The industry is heavily regulated. The people I skydived with at Gananoque in Southern Ontario helped pioneer/implement and train people in safe skydiving. They helped develop a standard for skydiving across the country. They pioneered the tandem jumps here as well. These guys take safety and fun very seriously.

2 jumps that day cost me about $500, I could have spend $1000 and have been equally satisfied with the experience.

wyly · May 25, 2010

D'oh !!! I knew it did not sound right after I read it!!!

I know it was an error but it made me laugh just the same...

reminded me of another post a few years back where a poster accused suicide bombers of being cowards as they would blow themselves up killing innocents then run away and hide among civilians :lol: that was classic...

The industry is heavily regulated. The people I skydived with at Gananoque in Southern Ontario helped pioneer/implement and train people in safe skydiving. They helped develop a standard for skydiving across the country. They pioneered the tandem jumps here as well. These guys take safety and fun very seriously.
2 jumps that day cost me about $500, I could have spend $1000 and have been equally satisfied with the experience.

$100 for ten jumps when I was 20, never got around to doing it though...

but my point was if you did this as part of a job you'd want health and safety officials making sure your employer had safety standards in place and that you'd have workman's comp in case of injury...and as a taxpayer do you want to be paying for tens of thousands of people's healthcare and comp because their employers didn't follow approved safety standards?...

Edited May 25, 2010 by wyly

GostHacked · May 25, 2010

I know it was an error but it made me laugh just the same...

but my point was if you did this as part of a job you'd want health and safety officials making sure your employer had safety standards in place and that you'd have workman's comp in case of injury...and as a taxpayer do you want to be paying for tens of thousands of people's healthcare and comp because their employers didn't follow approved safety standards?...

In the end we may have to anyways. But the employer is definitely responsible for long term disability. Although I have seen several cases where it has been grossly abused.

Alright, getting off topic ...

wyly · May 25, 2010

Alright, getting off topic ...

only slightly...it's safety in the workplace, smoking is a threat to employee health which taxpayers end up paying for in healthcare and workers comp...interesting contradiction in the Netherlands where smoking isn't allowed in cafes but is allowed outdoors...where as pot is only used indoors and is not to be used outdoors...they apparently see cigarettes as a much greater health hazard than pot...I personally agree with that, sitting next to a pot user has no effect on me, a cigarette causes me breathing problems...

GostHacked · May 25, 2010

only slightly...it's safety in the workplace, smoking is a threat to employee health which taxpayers end up paying for in healthcare and workers comp...interesting contradiction in the Netherlands where smoking isn't allowed in cafes but is allowed outdoors...where as pot is only used indoors and is not to be used outdoors...they apparently see cigarettes as a much greater health hazard than pot...I personally agree with that, sitting next to a pot user has no effect on me, a cigarette causes me breathing problems...

Gotcha. When I was Djing in the clubs when smoking was taking place I had to shower when I got home. Put my gear in the garage cause it stank large like cigarettes (that stuff has staying power). It was nice to be in a club where the fog machine was actually needed to create fog instead of just using the smoke already in the air!!

I am pretty happy that smoking is banned inside restaurants and night clubs. It's also nice to see these same places designate a place for smokers. I mean they don't have to cater to them, but if you do, you can get business.

Even ask most smokers if they want to allow smoking in these places again , most will say no way.

wyly · May 25, 2010

I am pretty happy that smoking is banned inside restaurants and night clubs. It's also nice to see these same places designate a place for smokers. I mean they don't have to cater to them, but if you do, you can get business.

Even ask most smokers if they want to allow smoking in these places again , most will say no way.

I actually enjoy going to restaurants to eat now I had stopped because of the smoking...my kids who do the nightclub thing complain they have to wait in line for hours to get in, so no smoking isn't doing any damage to that industry...and my local pub is still a busy place without smoking and it doesn't even have an outdoor patio for smokers...

DrGreenthumb · May 26, 2010

following the loony reasoning of some on this forum I should demand my freedom to hunt with in the city screw the safety of others and their freedom to live in safety...

You are comparing discharging a firearm in a densely populated area to someone having a smoke, and you have the nerve to call other people's reasoning looney? Make sure you don't walk past an idling automobile it might blow your head off. :lol:

Wild Bill · May 26, 2010

I actually enjoy going to restaurants to eat now I had stopped because of the smoking...my kids who do the nightclub thing complain they have to wait in line for hours to get in, so no smoking isn't doing any damage to that industry...and my local pub is still a busy place without smoking and it doesn't even have an outdoor patio for smokers...

If you start with 100 places and then have 80 go under, it's not surprising that the 20 that are left can be busier than before.

My point? Your one local pub is not an entire industry. Neither is one nightclub frequented by your kids.

Tell it to the former manager of Lulu's, a club that boasted the biggest bar in the world! It was in the Kitchener/Waterloo region and used to have VERY big name acts and was a very active bar for years. The K/W area was one of the first targets of the anti-tobacco movement. Lulu's was one of the first casualties. The owner made no secret that the anti-smoking laws made it impossible for him to attract enough customers to make a profit. That was when I first heard the claim that eliminating smoking would INCREASE business!

Incidently, there is still no equivalent to Lulu's in business today. Clubs are far smaller, trying to get by with drinking, a bit of dancing, some pool tables and moving a lot of pub food. This is a much smaller venue than before. We used to see several hundred people in dance clubs. Now we are lucky to find a place that can hold 40-50 and its rarely full. That level of patronage can't possibly sell enough beer to pay for a decent band.

That industry has been virtually destroyed, primarily because of the anti-smoking movement.

Another claim was that it would protect employees. I guess that was true. They rapidly became FORMER employees since their place of employ closed down and they had no jobs. Still, it was true that they were no longer exposed to passive smoke. The area is a University town and it hurt many students in traditional jobs of waitressing and bussing tables.

I'm making no judgements as to whether or not we're better off from a health aspect. I just take exception to what were bald-faced lies as to the financial aspects of smoking bans. To say it's all worth it is one thing. To claim that it could and was achieved with no hurt is quite another.

Usually, the ones who claim it didn't hurt financially have had little or no long term experience with clubs and music so they were and are pulling stats out of their butts! This is the part that rattled their credibility with me. What else might they lie about? Obviously, the anti-smoking movement is largely madeup of people who believe that "the ends justify the means". On any issue, such people have always frightened me!

Edited May 26, 2010 by Wild Bill

ZenOps · May 26, 2010

Hey, the US is going after the Jamaican Cocaine king too. Prince of Pot and King of Coke.

Interesting... They are having a tough time trying to get him though. Will be forcibly extradited if they actually manage to get him.

With the possible legalization of marijuanna, California has been readying a bumper crop probably 3x what it was in previous years. I'm thinking right on the cusp of $100 Billion/year. That the US is pressuring and going after the drugkingpins in other sovereign countries really makes me think they are looking to keep the price high *no pun intended* by eliminating the competition.

I've totally underestimated Obama, well played.

Its a valid way to pull a state or nation out of recession instead of militant wars. Vancouver won't be selling to the US, The US will be selling to Canada.

There is no way that both of these are a coincidence. The king of coke has been in power and untouchable for 25 years.

Anyone planning on a trip to California in November to celebrate?

Edited May 26, 2010 by ZenOps

bush_cheney2004 · May 26, 2010

....Its a valid way to pull a state or nation out of recession instead of militant wars.

No it's not...pot prices have dropped steeply since medical weed dispensaries opened.

ZenOps · May 26, 2010

No it's not...pot prices have dropped steeply since medical weed dispensaries opened.

California plans legalization - for everyone. Not just the 0.whatever percentage of the population that has a medical requirement.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/prop-zero/Can-Pot-Help-Rescue-California-93966539.html

I assume that would mean at least $2.5 Billion in tax revenue for the California region in the first year. That would take a decent chunk out of their $19 Billion projected debt - but nowhere near enough to get them to break even.

Edited May 26, 2010 by ZenOps

bush_cheney2004 · May 26, 2010

...I assume that would mean at least $2.5 Billion in tax revenue for the California region in the first year.

Won't happen as the price of the commodity crashes...even with taxes. Cultivating marijuana is not rocket science.

maple_leafs182 · May 26, 2010

no more than beer probably much less, definitely not as toxic as cigarettes...I would want to see a study done on pot use and operating a car and if there is there needs to be simple roadside test to address that issue...

So do you think it should be legal or illegal.

ZenOps · May 26, 2010

Yeah, I'm sure that the price will crash on Nov 2 globally, should they actually go ahead with legalization.

Even if they don't go ahead with it - there will be a glut of California weed that the farmers will technically have to destroy (to adhere to the law) but as always, it never happens (like farmers that get govt cheques for crops they attempt to grow)

That $2.5 Billion guessestimate does factor in a 3x drop in price.

Edited May 26, 2010 by ZenOps

Sir Bandelot · May 26, 2010

That $2.5 Billion guessestimate does factor in a 3x drop in price.

There's also going to be a second effect that saves money- less people going through the legal system and going to jail.

ZenOps · May 26, 2010

True enough. They already have let people go on shortened terms in California because they simply cannot afford the jails anymore.

Canada losing Emery is quite a blow to the nation. Criminal or not (depending on where you are and at what time in history) hes like the Wayne Gretzky of pot. Now that hes no longer on our team, the price and percieved quality of locally grown pot (BC marijuana) will probably decrease. Meaning the US will have a much easier time growing and controlling the market.

It will probably cost Canada a Billion or so each year (again, just a guessestimate)

Its like the old days of the English kings and black peppercorn. The actual pepper spice (and worth the most) was actually long pepper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_pepper worth more per ounce than gold at the time.

The english aristocracy used to snort pepper, much like cocaine nowadays Anything for a thrill, lol.

I wonder how good those 20 foot plants in Mendocino county are. I bet they are just like the craptastic oversize flavourless for export strawberries we get in Canada.

Edited May 26, 2010 by ZenOps

Wild Bill · May 26, 2010

Won't happen as the price of the commodity crashes...even with taxes. Cultivating marijuana is not rocket science.

Hard to say. We know the figures involved are HUGE but we don't know them exactly!

It will also depend on how MUCH the state taxes the product! There are taxes on beer and alcohol. Everyone knows that it's cheaper to make your own but relatively few people do. That's because the taxes are reasonable enough that for most users it's just not worth the effort to make their own.

Contrast this with the situation in Ontario, where the taxes have been jacked so absurdly high that estimates cite that at least HALF of all cigarettes consumed are contraband!

I always wondered how the stats were collected for such products, given that the suppliers were highly unlikely to file reports. A recent newspaper article explained it. Apparently, people are paid to collect butts in smoking places and count the legals and "illegals". The article cited the delicious irony of how contraband butts where picked up on the sidewalk outside of the Supreme Court!

Anyhow, if California levies taxes that keep the retail price reasonable to discourage people growing their own, or perhaps even keeps CULTIVATION illegal to protect the state's interest, I'm sure that the tax revenue will be very large! It might be a stretch to make the claim that pot can singlehandedly wipe out the national deficit and revive a Mars colony space program but nonetheless, I doubt if the treasurer of California would turn his nose up at it.