"No Schedule" on Cannabis Legalization

[Smallc]

The provinces should handle all of it. All the liberal government has to do is announce a date 6 months or a year from now when federal enforcement will end, so that the provinces have time to implement their own policies.

That's not really true though. There are necessary federal regulations around tobacco and alcohol as well, plus the treaties we haev to comply with.

But I personally don't think that the liberals will do it. It was probably just something they said to help them get elected.

Their track record so far doesn't fit that theory:

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

[dre]

That's not really true though. There are necessary federal regulations around tobacco and alcohol as well, plus the treaties we haev to comply with.

Their track record so far doesn't fit that theory:

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

Yeah but the way to get those things dealt with is to take a first step. The liberals have been promising to legalize or decriminalize pot for about 20 years. As for "treaties" I think this is a red herring. Our elected government should do whats best for us, and if other countries are going to complain then well have to tackle that later. Plus nobody answered my question about what these treaties are.

Ill gladly bet you $100 dollars that there will be no significant movement on this in the next four years.

[Big Guy]

I support the legalization of the use of marijuana. I also believe that the legislation should be passed as soon as possible but I fear the Liberals may delay it as a pre-election push (like the Conservatives did with the gun registration reversal).

What else I would like to see is to expurge previous convictions for marijuana possession. An individual should be able to apply for and get their criminal record wiped of that previous crime.

There are far too many young adults out there who are unable to find positions in professional careers because of some indiscretion while in University or High School.

I believe that when a government chooses to rescind a criminal law then it admits that it was a mistake. I do not think Canadians should continue to pay for their government mistakes.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Big Guy

[overthere]

Why wouldn't the provinces handle distribution and non health related regulation? They do with alcohol and to some extent tobacco. This seems like one of your complaints because Trudeau.

The federal govt also has fat taxes on alcohol made in Canada. Were you not aware of that? They have to choose if they will do that on weed too. I'm guessing they won't because then they still have a finger in a rotten pie, one they want to get far away from.

If they get involved with the production, distribution or taxation of weed, they'll be expected to deal with the consequences of their action to legalize it. And there will be consequences, related to forcing consumers to buy only expensive, government controlled weed. Somebody will have to enforce that, and it will get ugly fast. It think Trudeau is smart enough to recognize the abyss, but he has made this promise and while he dithers many people are accumulating criminal records.

Because Trudeau? Well as I recall it is his promise to make or break. But just like you, he is working hard to find a way to avoid any responsibility for his actions. Of curse, the same thing would come from any politician who took this turd close to their bosom. The only win for Trudeau here is to legalize it and he has already realized that win in the form of votes. Now he'll have to run hard away from all the rest, while pretending he is bestowing tax largesse on the provinces.

[Smallc]

You're conjuring a lot of things that haven't even happened, and they you have no evidence will happen.

[square]

Off topic but, people are acting like the law is dead. Yesterday while I was driving I saw a young boy smoking pot crossing the intersection. This happened while the flow of traffic stopped in my lane because of a red light. There was a police vehicle in the adjacent lane I don't know if the cop noticed the boy smoking pot, but he probably did and decided to use his discretion and did nothing.

[eyeball]

What else I would like to see is to expurge previous convictions for marijuana possession. An individual should be able to apply for and get their criminal record wiped of that previous crime.

To be perfectly honest I think people who continue to experience deprivation and hardship as a result of these records should consider launching a class-action suit for damages caused by dithering.

[cybercoma]

Stoning adulterers and cutting the hands off thieves. Now that's what I call "Justice!" /s

[nerve]

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/

Edited March 18, 2016 by nerve

[nerve]

Why wouldn't the provinces handle distribution and non health related regulation? They do with alcohol and to some extent tobacco. This seems like one of your complaints because Trudeau.

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

Just because the state you are trying to enter has legalized pot means does not mean the border protection considers the possession or use of pot OK. If you admit to using drugs you can be turned away. If you are caught with possession of marijuana you can be arrested.

http://www.ezbordercrossing.com/the-inspection-experience/prior-criminal-offenses/crimes-that-will-make-you-inadmissible-to-the-u-s/#.VuwZjuIrI1I

Edited March 18, 2016 by nerve

[Boges]

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/

So let's say dude who grows his own wants to "give" some surplus to a friend. Illegal right? So we're going to need a whole new level of enforcement to ensure that people stay within the borders of this new legalization framework.

Which exposes the hypocrisy of anyone who thinks legalization is required to keep people from being caught up in the legal system for a "harmless" act.

[Smallc]

Health regulation is federal jurisdiction. Healthcare delivery is provincial.

[eyeball]

Notwithstanding the stupid border dweebs it looks like all anyone needs to keep the state off your back in Canada is the supreme court.

I just love activist judges - can't get enough of them.

[Boges]

Hey it's 4/20 let's finally have a "schedule" on legalization.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/20/marijuana-legislation-coming-to-canada-next-spring.html

Philpott says Canada must do better when it comes to drug policy, noting the government’s approach will be rooted in scientific evidence to address the devastating consequences of drugs and drug-related crimes.

Philpott says she recently heard an emotional story from a mother who lost her daughter due to substance abuse.

They have to talk about of both sides of their mouth with this one. They have to admit that criminalizing cannabis is wrong but still claim that there needs to be a public safety element to any legalization process.

If the legislation allows for people to grow their own plants, any talk of public safety is just lip service. The only way to regulate people and make sure that it's not getting in the hands of children is to dramatically INCREASE!! enforcement of laws. It's just that they'll be collecting money and not spending it by throwing people in jail. Something which decriminalization would do, but they won't do that.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Boges

[square]

I can't believe they announced it on 420 day.

[eyeball]

Philpott began her speech with an emotional recounting of a story she recently heard from a mother who lost her daughter to substance abuse.

The woman described watching her daughter die as she sought help that should have been available to save her life, Philpott said.

She must be talking about legalizing fentanyl or crack.

[eyeball]

I can't believe they announced it on 420 day.

Talking about dead drug addicted teenagers on the same day TV's will be filled with images of out of control teenagers sucking on joints the size of baseball bats makes sense if you're mostly interested in manipulating public sensibilities.

[PIK]

Decriminalize it and move on.

[Smallc]

Decriminalize it and move on.

Why would you want to decriminalize organized crime?

[BC_chick]

I can't believe they announced it on 420 day.

That couldn't have been a coincidence.

[Big Guy]

I can't believe they announced it on 420 day.

What is the relationship between 420 and legalization of marijuana?

[square]

What is the relationship between 420 and legalization of marijuana?

420 is code for marijuana.

[dre]

So let's say dude who grows his own wants to "give" some surplus to a friend. Illegal right? So we're going to need a whole new level of enforcement to ensure that people stay within the borders of this new legalization framework.

I would just treat it like broccoli. If you want to give some to a friend thats fine. Even if you want to have a small booth at the local farmers market thats fine. But if you want to be a large scale distributor you need to follow some rules, get a license, and submit to some inspections, etc.

[nerve]

The fastest way to protect minors is to encourage the provinces to legislate age restrictions prior to it being any federal action to change its status, and to increase the penalties to trafficking/sales/provision to minors without parental consent. This in line also with youth and children services, children's aid making statements in public knowledge if providing any quantity of marijuana whether low or thc in food or otherwise would be considered abuse, or if vaping or smoking or eating ec.., this is problematic because alcohol can be given to minors with parental consent, so this immediately questions whether any recreational substances should be considered abuse etc.. if they are technically legal.

There is also the issue that people like Justin Trudeau seem to be ignoring, regarding providing legal streams to organized crime, THEY ALREADY HAVE ILLEGAL STREAMS DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, whether organized crime or not. Providing legal streams of income is HONOURABLE, not something to be avoided by parliament, BRING IN MORE LEGAL WORK FOR EVERYONE!

In fact the government providing licensing to any qualified person, with sales meeting the specific legal requirements of the federal, provincial an municipal governments, provides a safe legal, traceable alternative to dealing with people who violate the law, deal in very dangerous drugs, could lace pot, and may be involved in other illicit activities. Bringing the activities into public record allow easier enforcement and investigation of any neighbouring illicit activities that could invalidate or bar someone from licensed trade, and put them on a public offenders list not unlike the sex offenders list, making a public record of people who have provided illegal drugs to minors (and the number of minors and times they have done it), or who have violated licensing conditions and are barred from selling narcotics to a pubic record, so that they are easier tracked if they after any penalty fall back on illegal trade.

Legalization need not make easier illegal trade in fact by providing legal access it would provide grounds to crack down on those who break the rules of legal trade, such as using it as a gateway, or lacing it, to hook people into upgrading to hard drugs. Softening pot access does not necessitate less policing of drugs considered to be social wrongs such as crack and angel dust.

People who use illegal drugs are much less likely to report issues of use to pubic authorities because their using it is illegal, however if their use was legal they may report, not so good activities they encounter such as lacing, or bad product.

The stigma of use, and potential future health insurance issues, is not something that simply disappears, but we must recognize that we are finally starting to recognize that Cannabis can be beneficial, with or without THC, it is all RESPONSIBLE use that Canada needs to somehow create a system for. Not unlike red wine or coffee, it can have benefits if it is not abused.

Delaying this in fact PROVIDES continuance of a multibillion dollar trade that has existed for a few decades now.

It is total ignorance to imply that pot isn't already being sold and provided to people quote unquote illegally.

How does encouraging and providing a legal means of living in anyway, worsen the situation?

Legal supply can be managed simply by production quotas.

Unlicensed sale of course can be managed by fines.

The provinces need to get on this yesterday, and until the issue of Paramountcy is addressed by passing an interim motion or bill that allows the provinces to regulate on cannabis on the basis of legalization by the federal government, this process will be done with a blindfold.

The provinces and federal government ought to coordinate on this.

Of course saying a law will happen before a vote in parliament is rife with questions as to how exactly laws are made, and normally that includes a vote.

Although the opposition clearly spouting about a failure of the government to act, could very well propose a private members bill that would CHIP away at the issues, and bring those issues into debate. They have no need to wait for the government.

THE BEST thing the government can do is get safer and better drugs on the street that correct the cultural issues of the past that introduced risks such as location of use, manner of use, and time of use, and activities while high. No law will have any effect if people break the law. The only thing it is doing is adding costs in keeping people in jail at more than the cost of employing someone each year. It is also limiting the international capacities of Canadians. The costs are extreme and this is for associating with a plant that grows in nature. People do not respect the law, it is making criminals, and encouraging dissent against a legislated society.

Edited April 21, 2016 by nerve

[nerve]

So let's say dude who grows his own wants to "give" some surplus to a friend. Illegal right? So we're going to need a whole new level of enforcement to ensure that people stay within the borders of this new legalization framework.

Which exposes the hypocrisy of anyone who thinks legalization is required to keep people from being caught up in the legal system for a "harmless" act.

Not if reasonable rules are set.

Obviously I have no idea what the rules are, but one would think that there will be an age link and a quantity link.

There may be a requirement for licensed sale, meeting certain criteria to distribute.

I would invision this as not much different from alchohol.

Technically it is illegal to sell booze to people except within the framework. You know people still pick up stuff for their friends and stuff, whether that is legal or not is another matter.

None the less there are laws on the books for supplying alchohol to minors. That need not be equivolent to the mandatory minimum sentences that existed in the past.

Its obvious that a controlled substances such as tobacco or alcohol still has systems in place to protect youth.

It is obvious youth break those rules, but perhaps not with as much regularity as if it were not a controlled substance.

You know the fact this stuff is smoked means that there needs to be controls on where it is used. Due to the reasonability required for safe drug use as opposed to abuse, youth really do need to be protected from irresponsible usages. I think if anything this will only create more social awareness of the issues of abuse, and that getting the laced drugs out of circulation and the gateway to hard drugs shut is a step in the right direction.

More of the same really isn't a solution.

You know now we have a timeline, at this point it is a bit like waiting for a baby.

It is being formed slowly but with time we will see what shape it will take.

The birth is nearly inevitable though, all we can do is prepare for it and hope that it turns out healthy.

Just to put in perspective

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/province-raising-fines-for-providing-alcohol-to-minors-1.512016

Supplying alcohol might meet with a fine, however if you administer a noxious substance (which results in an injury or without consent) it is a criminal offence.

Obviously there will need to be differentiation between victimizing someone and breaking a regulation. Victimization equates a crime while breaking a regulation meets with a fine. Part of a crime is also having a criminal intent, such as intending to break the rules and get someone high even though they are a minor, or have not consented to getting drugged.

Clearly consent cannot be provided if they are not above 16 years of age or something like that, whereas you would face a criminal penalty for people who have not reached the age of consent while you might just face a fine for underage people who have consented and are of age of consent or age of majority etc..

Here is an idea on age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_Canada

The lower the age the worse the penalty.

Of course there is also the civil penalty that anyone supplying could be liable for anything that happens for someone who uses a served product under their care. At least as far as any establishents which house the activity.

Edited April 30, 2016 by nerve