"No Schedule" on Cannabis Legalization

nerve · February 24, 2016

A judge struck down the medical marijuana rules, the Gov has 6 months to make new rules.

Is it just me or does this sound like the perfect time for an omnibus pot legislation rollout.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/medical-marijuana-federal-court-ruling-1.3461694

This would put the legislation framework to within the next 6 months, and at the very least the legislation will include legal grow ops by medical marijuana users.

Edited February 24, 2016 by nerve

overthere · February 24, 2016

I would take all the laws that apply to asparagus and just apply them to pot except that its not allowed for minors.

You can grow as much as you want... give it to friends... sell a little bit at the local farmers market... But large scale production and distribution would require a licence.

That would be the sane and rational course, given the clusterf**k that is coming, but it won't happen. All levels of govt want some tax money out of this. They cannot help themselves. The business model that govt will be competing with will eat govt weed bureaucracies for lunch.

I am starting to wonder if there is a mathematical correlation between Broken Promises/Maple Leaf Web Apologists .

Oops I said that wrong. I can see there is a strong link, I wonder what the ratio is.....

overthere · February 24, 2016

Never thought it would be.

But I have little doubt it will be made even more difficult by government bureaucracy all for the sake of "social responsibility"

Right now I do not think anybody here would have any problem going out and buying pot.

Dealers are not picky about the age or where it is sold.

I am sure nobody is happier than the local drug dealers that this will take years if ever pot is to be legalized.

The difficulty won't be marketing baloney like 'social responsibility". That will be the excuse to let Provincial Liquor Boards collect taxes for everybody, and I do mean everybody.

No, the difficulty will be somehow defeating /competing against private sector weed which will be(as always) the very best quality for lower prices. And how will they enforce age restrictions on smoking weed when they don't do it now? Law enforcement? Criminal records? Teenagers in jail?

Trudeau sees the minefield, he must. What his buddy Blair is working on is an exit strategy for the federal polticians. No way do they want to wear this mighty turd!

eyeball · February 25, 2016

So someone charged in the next few years should feel good about the fact that eventually it won't be a crime?

Or they could decriminalize it immediately. Most cops don't enforce the law anyway, except when they're being racist, as the story in the OP makes mention of.

But there's no money in that.

The goal here is to find a way make pot just as illegal UNLESS!!! it's purchased from a government-owned dispensary with a hefty excise tax tacked on.

Clearly the thing to do is just get a doctors note.

It's like a prescription for making BS evaporate.

eyeball · February 25, 2016

That would be the sane and rational course, given the clusterf**k that is coming, but it won't happen. All levels of govt want some tax money out of this. They cannot help themselves. The business model that govt will be competing with will eat govt weed bureaucracies for lunch.

I'm reminded of stories about bikers and gangsters shaking down Mom and Pop grow-ops for their produce and profits.

Maybe we should criminalize the whole economy, there'd probably be a lot more money floating around in it.

Smallc · February 25, 2016

I think I'll let this...intelligent...comment, speak for itself:

On casual marijuana use, Ambrose said that “everyone thinks it’s legal because Justin Trudeau has been elected and he’s for legalizing pot.”

“(The Liberals) moved ahead with signalling that pot is legal all across this country. That’s what everyone actually thinks, when in fact the law doesn’t say that yet,” Ambrose told CTV’s Power Play on Wednesday.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canadians-confused-about-marijuana-laws-ambrose-says-1.2791837

eyeball · February 25, 2016

As if perception never ever

mattered in politics. What was the electorate smoking anyway?

No one around here seems to thinks it's legal yet at all.

The_Squid · February 25, 2016

Boges is upset about how long this will take?

Why?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Michael Hardner
spelling

Boges · February 25, 2016

Boges is upset about how long this will take?

Why?

No, I'm just highlighting that JT really isn't doing anything here. We won't see legalization for years, if ever. But I'm sure many voted for him because he said he would legalize it.

Seems like the status quo under Harper is fine with him.

I think an unwritten decriminalization is best. Cops won't waste time charging for possession and the product remains tax free.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Boges

Smallc · February 25, 2016

No, I'm just highlighting that JT really isn't doing anything here. We won't see legalization for years, if ever.

That's not what he said. What he said is that he can't commit to a timeline at this point.

Boges · February 25, 2016

That's not what he said. What he said is that he can't commit to a timeline at this point.

Which allows him to do nothing for years. When you can't even commit to having a legalization model until the next election, what exactly are you doing? The pledge was useless. But I'm sure many voted for him because of the pledge.

Smallc · February 25, 2016

Which allows him to do nothing for years.

Timelines have a way of slipping. By not setting one, you can proceed as needed. This is, after all, uncharted territory.

When you can't even commit to having a legalization model until the next election, what exactly are you doing? The pledge was useless.

Not committing to a timeline in politics doesn't really mean much. We won't know what's going on for a bit yet.

Boges · February 25, 2016

Timelines have a way of slipping. By not setting one, you can proceed as needed. This is, after all, uncharted territory.

Not committing to a timeline in politics doesn't really mean much. We won't know what's going on for a bit yet.

But when the critique of the previous government was that they were criminalizing a behaviour that the public largely believes is OK. Saying that the criminal laws will be enforced until that day that IT IS legalized screams of hypocrisy.

cybercoma · February 25, 2016

I think I'll let this...intelligent...comment, speak for itself:On casual marijuana use, Ambrose said that “everyone thinks it’s legal because Justin Trudeau has been elected and he’s for legalizing pot.”“(The Liberals) moved ahead with signalling that pot is legal all across this country. That’s what everyone actually thinks, when in fact the law doesn’t say that yet,” Ambrose told CTV’s Power Play on Wednesday.http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canadians-confused-about-marijuana-laws-ambrose-says-1.2791837

I wonder why she didn't apply this thinking to her government's position on guns in the past?

cybercoma · February 25, 2016

Boges, are you really criticizing Trudeau for not legalizing pot fast enough? Didn't you argue here that the govt needs to take its time to get it right and that you support he status quo?

Oh they'll call you stodgy.

We have a pretty stodgy society regarding tobacco and alcohol.

I think we need to see how the states in the US handle weed legalization. Would people agree to buying permits to smoke weed? And what punishment will be passed down if you don't have a permit, and what type of enforcement will be implemented to make sure people buy permits?

Lots of questions. Many people smoke weed without fear of criminalization already, So I do support criminalization, I'm not sure about legalization right now, I think it'll make getting weed harder not easier.

Boges · February 25, 2016

Boges, are you really criticizing Trudeau for not legalizing pot fast enough? Didn't you argue here that the govt needs to take its time to get it right and that you support he status quo?

Wow you went a ways back to get that post. I don't even remember the context of the post within the thread. I think it's consistent with what I've been saying in the Provincial thread about this in Ontario.

I'm completely Libertarian about this. I don't like the Nanny state nature of governments in their treatment of alcohol. And I know that's the avenue the government wants go down with legalization. They'll probably step up enforcement to try, and I have no idea how they'll do this, to make sure people only smoke weed bought from government owned stores.

I'm just highlighting another area where JT isn't really doing what he was elected to do. What are we legalizing pot for? to help keep people out of legal trouble for doing a somewhat harmless drug or are we doing it because there's money in it? If you're doing it to keep people out of jail then decriminalization could happen tomorrow.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Boges

cybercoma · February 25, 2016

The answer is clearly both. They want to keep people out of jail, but also mitigate harm and make money on it.

Boges · February 25, 2016

The answer is clearly both. They want to keep people out of jail, but also mitigate harm and make money on it.

Thought weed was largely harmless. Does the product only become safe when you pay an excise tax for it?

The problem with weed is there's already a healthy black market for it. There really isn't much need to sell it legally if the price is priced to promote the social responsibility lie.

cybercoma · February 25, 2016

Why did you say "largely" harmless? Obviously you chose that word carefully because you know there are potential harms.

Boges · February 25, 2016

Why did you say "largely" harmless? Obviously you chose that word carefully because you know there are potential harms.

Sure but not ones that would require a criminal charge for using the product. The main concern is for with younger people, keeping it a criminal charge for everyone doesn't help that problem.

cybercoma · February 25, 2016

No, but that's why legislation needs to be crafted in a particular way. If weed is removed from the drug schedule, then could someone be charged for administering a noxious substance for spiking food and giving it to someone unexpectedly? What do we do about driving while high? What regulations will there be for sale and distribution? There's a lot of stuff to figure out. Frankly, I think the provinces should handle most of it as they do with alcohol. Healthcare, education, sale and distribution are all provincial jurisdictions. If Trudeau goes that way, then he should give the provinces time to coordinate.

dre · February 25, 2016

I keep reading about international treaties that tie the governments hands on this, or will make it hard for them to implement.

Can anyone tell me what they are? I'm not saying they don't exist but this claim is at least something that should be backed up.

Boges · February 25, 2016

No, but that's why legislation needs to be crafted in a particular way. If weed is removed from the drug schedule, then could someone be charged for administering a noxious substance for spiking food and giving it to someone unexpectedly? What do we do about driving while high? What regulations will there be for sale and distribution? There's a lot of stuff to figure out. Frankly, I think the provinces should handle most of it as they do with alcohol. Healthcare, education, sale and distribution are all provincial jurisdictions. If Trudeau goes that way, then he should give the provinces time to coordinate.

No one was talking about all this when the Harper government was accused of keeping the law and allowing people to rot in jail for using a safe substance.

The province probably will deal with distribution of the regulated stuff (as someone from Ontario that means they'll screw it up) but the Feds have to remove it from the criminal code first.

eyeball · February 25, 2016

The province probably will deal with distribution of the regulated stuff (as someone from Ontario that means they'll screw it up) but the Feds have to remove it from the criminal code first.

Which Trudeau could do tomorrow.