"No Schedule" on Cannabis Legalization

[Boges]

Your dealer will probably stop dealing. Pot can be grown for 5-15 dollars per oz in an industrial scale operation. Even if the government taxed it 400% it would be cheaper than what your dealer likely sells it for. This is what we have seen with booze and cigarettes... small black market components still exist but they have a tiny tiny share of the market. You don't see a whole lot of people running illegal distillery operations for the purpose of trafficking. Some cigarette smuggling happens simply because we live next to a country where they cost much less, but its a tiny share of the market.

Many people use Black Market cigarettes. The reason people don't use black market alcohol is because it takes a long time to create good alcohol. Not so much with cannabis.

If the government undercuts the dealers and still offers a fair price, then fine. But the social responsibility lie would indicate that they need to charge enough that it's not such an affordable product.

[dre]

Many people use Black Market cigarettes. The reason people don't use black market alcohol is because it takes a long time to create good alcohol. Not so much with cannabis.

The black market for cigarettes is a TINY percentage of the market. If there was prohibition it would be 100%. And the reason people don't use black market alcohol much is because there's not money in brewing on a very small scale when you're competing against huge companies with factories and good economy of scale. Plus... why take a chance of criminal activity when you can just get a license?

[cybercoma]

So like cigarettes that are twice as expensive in Canada, Canadians will be crossing the border to buy cheaper gas...and legal dope.

Amazing....

Still better than going to Mexico for healthcare.

[Boges]

The black market for cigarettes is a TINY percentage of the market. If there was prohibition it would be 100%. And the reason people don't use black market alcohol much is because there's not money in brewing on a very small scale when you're competing against huge companies with factories and good economy of scale. Plus... why take a chance of criminal activity when you can just get a license?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ontario-tobacco-tax-1.3466301

"Between 2010 and 2013 the use of contraband tobacco began to soar. We had one highway enforcement team that confiscated 100,000 cartons of cigarettes and laid 265 criminal charges," Leon said. "That's a very significant amount of cigarettes."

According to some, it could only get worse.

"It's a giant step backwards in my mind," said Gary Grant, the spokesman for the National Coalition against Contraband Tobacco. "You have to get the contraband problem in hand, or at least semi-under control before you can [raise taxes].

Cannabis is a lot easier to make a tax-free version of than tobacco. I guess it all depends when price point the government chooses for it's legal product.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Boges

[eyeball]

Plus... why take a chance of criminal activity when you can just get a license?

Ah, there's the rub. Just get a licence...

You figure governments will just give these to anyone who applies or without the sorts of expensive onerous conditions that only a corporation could afford? Just wait until these licences lead to quotas and the cost of leasing these are taken into account. The cost of too many dollars chasing a limited opportunity to produce plus the efforts of the state to limit production can only have one result. See UBER as a case in point. Governments will make the same basic case (public safety/social responsibility) and run headlong into the public's desire to find affordable alternatives within a freer market. You can bet the benefactors of a protected limited market will be investing a lot of their profits in jealously and greedily lobbying for more of the same.

Edited March 3, 2016 by eyeball

[dre]

Ah, there's the rub. Just get a licence...

You figure governments will just give these to anyone who applies or without the sorts of expensive onerous conditions that only a corporation could afford? Just wait until these licences lead to quotas and the cost of leasing these are taken into account. The cost of too many dollars chasing a limited opportunity to produce plus the efforts of the state to limit production can only have one result. See UBER as a case in point. Governments will make the same basic case (public safety/social responsibility) and run headlong into the public's desire to find affordable alternatives within a freer market. You can bet the benefactors of a protected limited market will be investing a lot of their profits in jealously and greedily lobbying for more of the same.

All valid points but with time that changes. There's thousands of small U-Brew facilities now, tiny private liquor stores, and micro breweries that were not allowed before. Even pubs brewing their own beer for sale. I can legally purchase a few different kinds of beer, wine and spirits made right here in my little town, or within a short drive from it.

Like I said though I'm not optimistic either. I don't expect good legislation to come from the government any time soon, but I think after another few decades once the whole world is moving in the right direction we will too... gradually... step by step.

If nothing else we will just no longer be able to afford prohibition or over regulation anymore. The west will be the OLD WORLD soon. The rest of the world isn't going to keep loaning us money to live so easy, and squander on unsustainable and unnecessary and policies.

Edited March 3, 2016 by dre

[nerve]

What country is that ? Canada scheduled cannabis as "illegal" (1923) years before the United States. Started with Canada's racist opium and narcotics acts.

only 60 years later.

The US was over 60 years before that.

You are a deceiver. Stop trying to mislead people it is shameful.

Around 1860: Efforts to regulate the sale of pharmaceuticals began, and laws were introduced on a state-to-state basis that created penalties for mislabeling drugs, adulterating them with undisclosed narcotics, and improper sale of those considered "poisons". Poison laws generally either required labels on the packaging indicating the harmful effects of the drugs or prohibited sale outside of licensed pharmacies and without a doctor's prescription. Prominent pharmaceutical societies at the time supported the listing of cannabis as a poison.1906: The Pure Food and Drug Act requires that certain specified drugs, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, morphine, and cannabis, be accurately labeled with contents and dosage. Previously many drugs had been sold as patent medicines with secret ingredients or misleading labels. Cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and other such drugs continued to be legally available without prescription as long as they were labeled. It is estimated that sale of patent medicines containing opiatesdecreased by 33% after labeling was mandated.^[2]1914: The first recorded instance of the United States enacting a ban on the domestic distribution of drugs is the Harrison Narcotic Act^[4] of 1914. This act was presented and passed as a method of regulating the production and distribution of opiate-containing substances under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, but a section of the act was later interpreted by law enforcement officials for the purpose of prosecuting doctors who prescribe opiates to addicts.1919: Alcohol prohibition in the U.S. first appeared under numerous provincial bans and was eventually codified under a federal constitutional amendment in 1919, having been approved by 36 of the 48 U.S. states.1925: United States supported regulation of cannabis as a drug in the International Opium Convention.^[5]

1884

Maine is the first state to outlaw alcohol.

1906

Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, forming the Food and Drug Administration. First time that drugs have any government oversight.

1913California, apparently, passes the first state marijuana law, though missed by many because it referred to “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”

1914

Harrison Act passed, outlawing opiates and cocaine (taxing scheme)

1915

Utah passes state anti-marijuana law.

1919

18th Amendment to the Constitution (alcohol prohibition) is ratified.

Source: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

Get real we all know Canada is the follower lapdog to US policy historically not the otherway around

The drafters played on fears of “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes” and made references to Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and “Chinamen” seducing white women with drugs.^[19][20] Dr. Hamilton Wright, testified at a hearing for the Harrison Act. Wright alleged that drugs made blacks uncontrollable, gave them superhuman powers and caused them to rebel against white authority.

Until the 1980s, the two countries have typically agreed upon or aligned their drug policies, a functional necessity due to the large, undefended border which the two countries share (Mosher 2011).

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

More likely, cannabis was added to the list because of Canadian involvement in international conferences where it was discussed. According to one government official, cannabis was outlawed after the Director of the Federal Division of Narcotic Control returned from League of Nations meetings where the international control of the drug was broached.^[26]:49 Cannabis did not begin to attract official attention in Canada until the latter 1930s, and even then it was minimal.^[26]:51 The first seizure of cannabis by Canadian police was not until 1937.^[26]:48

That is right the first charge for possession of marijuana was in 1937 in Canada.

Oh coincidence

He was arrested on October 2, 1937, the same day that the Marihuana Tax Act in the United states.

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.

Nevertheless, Indian hemp had come to the attention of the narcotics authorities, in particular Hamilton Wright, the chief architect of U.S. narcotics policy, and Henry J. Finger, a prominent member of the California Board of Pharmacy who had been appointed with Wright to the U.S. delegation to the first International Opium Conference at the Hague in 1911. Source: http://canorml.org/background/ca1913.html HE MADE MARIJUANA ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA IN 1913

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.

On 28 September 1971, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 came into force creating the Class A, B and C classification system and making even more drugs controlled substances.

Cannabis first became illegal in the UK, and most of the rest of the world, on 28th September 1928 when the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act came into force. There were no British domestic reasons, no lobbying for or against prohibition, and no Parliamentary debates. The Act controlling 'Indian Hemp and all resins and preparations based thereon' had been passed after Britain signed the 1925 Geneva International Convention on Narcotics Control Source: http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm

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.

Restrictions for cannabis as a drug, often called Indian Hemp in documents before the 1940s, started in local laws in New York already in 1860 and was followed by local laws in many other states and by state laws in the 1910s and 1920s.^[5] The federal Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 regulated labeling of patent medicines with Cannabis Indica (Indian Hemp). In 1925 United States supported regulation of Indian hemp, Cannabis for use as a drug, in the International Opium Convention.^[6]Recommendations from the International Opium Convention inspired the work with the Uniform State Narcotic Act between 1925 and 1932.

In fact it was not POT at all that was sought to be banned, it was HASH.

CHAPTER XIX INDIAN HEMP (HASHISH) In 1923 the South African Government sent to the League of Nations the suggestion that hashish should be treated as a habit-forming narcotic drug and brought within the scope of The Hague Convention. The Advisory Committee considered the matter at its sixth session and passed the following Resolution: With reference to the proposal of the Government of the Union of South Africa that Indian hemp should be treated as one of the habit-forming drugs, the Advisory Committee recommends the Council that, in the first instance, the Governments should be invited to furnish to the League information as to the production and use of, and traffic in, this substance in their territories, together with their observations on the proposal of the Government of the Union of South Africa. The Committee further recommends that the question should be considered at the annual session of the Advisory Committee to be held in 1925. The subject of Indian hemp or hashish was presented to the Second Opium Conference at its sixteenth meeting by M. El Guindy, the Egyptian delegate, in a carefully prepared address. In addition there were circulated two documents dealing with the subject.1 From M. El Guindy's address the following excerpts may be given: The cannabis indica or sativa, called also by the name of hashish (English - Indian hemp; German - indianischer Hanf; French - chanvre indien), was known even in antiquity. It was originally cultivated on the plateau of Persia and Turkestan. Later, it was introduced into Asia Minor and Egypt, where it was mentioned by chroniclers of the time of the Crusades. At present, the countries which produce it are Siberia, Russia, the Caucasus, Persia, the western plateau of the Himalayas, Kashmir, India and also South-Eastern Europe. Researches undertaken with a view to determining the active agent of this plant led to the discovery of a product called cannabine, a kind of soft and brownish resin. An aromatic oil of an amber colour, whose inhalation causes dizziness and giddiness, is also derived from cannabis indica by distillation. In addition, it has been found to contain a certain quantity of nicotine. The flowers, the tender shoots and the fruits of the cannabis are specially utilised. Only the unfertilized female flowers, however, are able to produce the resinous matter, as fertilisation destroys the active principle of the plant. Hashish, prepared in various forms, is used principally in the following ways: (a) In the form of a paste made from the resin obtained from the crushed leaves and flowers, which is mixed with sugar and cooked with butter and aromatic substances and is used to make sweets, confectionery, etc.; known in Egypt by the names of manzul, maagun, and garawish. ( Cut into small fragments, it is mixed with tobacco for smoking in cigarettes. © The Indian hemp is simply smoked in special hookahs, called gozah. We must next consider the effects which are produced by the use of hashish and distinguish between: (1) Acute hashishism, and (2) Chronic hashishism. Taken in small doses, hashish at first produces an agreeable inebriation, a sensation of well-being and a desire to smile; the mind is stimulated. A slightly stronger dose brings a feeling of oppression and of discomfort. There follows a kind of hilarious and noisy delirium in persons of a cheerful disposition, but the delirium takes a violent form in persons of violent character. It should be noted that the behaviour under the influence of the delirium is always related to the character of an individual. The state of inebriation or delirium is followed by slumber, which is usually peaceful but sometimes broken by nightmares. The awakening is not unpleasant; there is a slight feeling of fatigue, but it soon passes. Hashish absorbed in large doses produces a furious delirium and strong physical agitation; it predisposes to acts of violence and produces a characteristic strident laugh. This condition is followed by a veritable stupor, which cannot be called sleep. Great fatigue is felt on awakening, and the feeling of depression may last for several days. The habitual use of hashish brings on chronic hashishism. The countenance of the addict becomes gloomy, his eye is wild and the expression of his face stupid. He is silent; has no muscular power; suffers from physical ailments, heart troubles, digestive troubles, etc.; his intellectual faculties gradually weaken and the whole organism decays. The addict very frequently becomes neurasthenic and, eventually, insane. In general, the absorption of hashish produces hallucinations, illusions as to time and place, fits of trembling, and convulsions. A person under the influence of hashish presents symptoms very similar to those of hysteria. From the therapeutic point of view, science has not made much use of hashish with good results. It has, however, been administered with some success in certain cases of delirium tremens. Taken thus occasionally and in small doses, hashish perhaps does not offer much danger, but there is always the risk that once a person begins to take it, he will continue. He acquires the habit and becomes addicted to the drug, and, once this has happened, it is very difficult to escape. Notwithstanding the humiliations and penalties inflicted on addicts in Egypt, they always return to their vice. They are known as "hashashees," which is a term of reproach in our country, and they are regarded as useless derelicts. Chronic hashishism is extremely serious, since hashish is a toxic substance, a poison against which no effective antidote is known. It exercises a sedative and hypnotic effect, and is prescribed in the following doses: The extract, from 0.015 gr. to 0.06 gr. The tincture, from 5 to 15 drops. Generally speaking, hashish is not very much used in medical practice, and its results are a matter of controversy. In view of the great danger involved by the consumption of hashish, special measures have been taken by the Egyptian Government. As early as 1868, Dr. Mohammad Ali Bey made a report to the competent authorities regarding the accidents caused by the abuse of hashish. In 1884, the cultivation of this plant was forbidden. The cafés (or mashhashas) in which hashish was consumed by smoking in special hookahs were closed, and are still mercilessly sought out by the police. Measures were taken to prevent the production and importation of cannabis indica; the following are the chief of those measures: All cultivation of cannabis indica is prohibited, and the cultivator is liable to a fine of £E 50 (equal to about 26 gold francs) per feddau or fraction of a feddau (the feddau is equal to 4,200.83 square metres). As regards importation, smuggled hashish used a few years ago to be confiscated and resold to agents for exportation. At present, the goods confiscated are destroyed and a fine of £E 10 per kilogramme is imposed on the clandestine importer. However small may be the quantity imported, the fine cannot be less than £E 2. It is interesting to note the quantities of hashish that have been confiscated as a result of the measures taken by the Egyptian Government.

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.

While people in the United States were introduced to the psychoactive use of cannabis (marijuana smoking) in the early 1900’s by way of ethnic immigrant settlers and contact with other cultures outside of the United States, “there are no reliable accounts of the non-medical use of cannabis in Canada which predate the 1930’s.”([118]) Even between the years of 1930-46 there were only 25 convictions for cannabis possession in all of Canada.([119]) Meanwhile in the United States, several newspapers had begun publishing reports of young people using marijuana. In 1933, Detective L.E. Bowery of the Wichita Police Department claimed “no denial can be made of the fact that marijuana smoking is at present a common practice among the young people of the city, and that it is constantly becoming more prevalent…”([120]) Later, by the early 1960’s

cannabis was well established in many American universities and among many high school aged youths. This may have been due to the American involvement in the Vietnamese War, as well as due to the evolution of the 1960’s hippie psychedelic ethos, the growth of underground newspapers, and the mass media’s attention to the drug.([121])

It was not until the mid-to late 1960s, when this level and type of usage was imitated in Canada. “In 1962 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reported only 20 cases connected with cannabis. In 1968 the number of cannabis related cases had risen to over 2300, and in 1972 there were nearly 12000 cannabis convictions in Canada.”([122]) source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/library/spicer-e.htm

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.

he first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana.

Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas’ first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."

Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it.

A second group of states that had criminal laws against the use of marijuana were in the Northeast: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York - had one and then repealed it and then had one again, New Jersey. Well, clearly no hypothesis about Mexican immigration will explain the genesis of those laws because, as you know, the Northeast has never had, still doesn't really, any substantial Mexican-American population. So we had to dig a little deeper to find the genesis of those laws. We had to go not only to the legislative records but to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed and what we found, in the early marijuana laws in the Northeast, we labeled the "fear of substitution." If I may, let me paraphrase an editorial from the New York Times in 1919 so we will get exactly the flavor of this fear of substitution.

The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times, "we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use." Source: http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/whitebread05.html

Mexico

Prior to the 1840s, traveler accounts from Mexico do not carry descriptions of cannabis usage; only a few people cultivated pipilzintzintlis. From the 1840s to the 1870s, the practice spread significantly, and the word marijuana / mariguana / marihuana came to be used more commonly (there are multiple etymological possibilities for its origin). Several reports and traveler accounts surfaced, claiming that soldiers in the Mexican military were being lazy after smoking marijuana; that captives in two Jalisco prisons were using it; that the herb could be found in the streets of Mexico City, or steadily along the Pacific coast between Puerto Vallarta and Acapulco. In the 1880s, the Mexican yellow press turned decidedly towards sensationalist reporting on issues considered “vices.” They mainly focused on crimes involving alcohol, but marijuana (along with morphine and opium) also found space in tabloid newspapers, to the tune of 763 mentions between 1880 and 1922. Soldiers and prisoners, it seems, smoked the most weed in Mexico, followed by urban laborers and other members of the working class. The media alleged that marijuana caused madness and violence, and to this end painted vivid, scary pictures of marijuana users who allegedly transformed into animal-like monsters and began killing sprees for no apparent reason. They were backed by psychiatrists, medical scholars, legal experts, and other members of Mexico’s burgeoning intelligentsia elite whose observations often exaggerated or misread the effects of the weed. Eventually in 1920, at a moment when bands of revolutionary fighters were roaming Mexico reluctant to put down their arms, the government passed a nationwide law banning marijuana. Source: http://www.panoramas.pitt.edu/content/marijuana-latin-america-and-caribbean-part-i-iii

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.

Finger, a forceful proponent of aggressive enforcement in California, had similar ideas. In a remarkable letter to Wright, dated July 2, 1911, he urged that the Conference take up the cannabis issue:"Within the last year we in California have been getting a large influx of Hindoos and they have in turn started quite a demand for cannabis indica; they are a very undesirable lot and the habit is growing in California very fast...the fear is now that they are initiating our whites into this habit... We were not aware of the extent of this vice at the time our legislature was in session and did not have our laws amended to cover this matter, and now have no legislative session for two years (January, 1913). This matter has been brought to my attention a great number of time in the last two months...it seems to be a real question that now confronts us: can we do anything in the Hague that might assist in curbing this matter?"

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.

Edited March 4, 2016 by nerve

[bush_cheney2004]

Get real we all know Canada is the follower lapdog to US policy historically not the otherway around

False....Canada scheduled cannabis before the United States federal government. Canada's racist opium and narcotics laws made it easier to do so. God Save the Queen !

Can't always blame the USA for Canadian decisions.....sorry.

Edited March 4, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[nerve]

False....Canada scheduled cannabis before the United States federal government. Canada's racist opium and narcotics laws made it easier to do so. God Save the Queen !

Can't always blame the USA for Canadian decisions.....sorry.

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.

Edited March 4, 2016 by nerve

[cybercoma]

Wow. That was a well researched response. The only thing to do now is ignore the trolling because it's obvious who backs their statements up with facts and who's just running their fingers.

[eyeball]

The interesting thing to note is that it's individual states still taking the lead on pot even if this time it's to back away from prohibition.

Did the US federal government try to stand in the way of cannabis' criminalization as much as it does it's legalization?

[bush_cheney2004]

The interesting thing to note is that it's individual states still taking the lead on pot even if this time it's to back away from prohibition.

Did the US federal government try to stand in the way of cannabis' criminalization as much as it does it's legalization?

Hard to say, but it looks like some Canadians are still waiting for the USA to lead the way. Sad.....

[Boges]

Hard to say, but it looks like some Canadians are still waiting for the USA to lead the way. Sad.....

What evidence is there of that?

Any US model would be far different because of the level of taxation and Canada's need to centralize the distribution of controlled substances.

Some people will say, Hey look how much they made in Colorado!!! But the model would be so different, which is why JT is dragging his heels, he's going to have to lower expectations.

[bush_cheney2004]

What evidence is there of that?

Any US model would be far different because of the level of taxation and Canada's need to centralize the distribution of controlled substances.

Some folks here really believe that Canada banned cannabis because of the USA to begin with. It is part of a larger neurosis that Washington tells Ottawa what to do. Hence, Trudeau and his apologists point at the U.S. and international obligations for excuses in not getting the job done.

I can legally buy pot...today...can you ?

[Boges]

It's an excuse Trudeau uses. It's all about getting to most money they can while continuing the social responsibility lie.

I do doubt that the US would be handwringing about international treaties if they ever decided to remove cannabis prohibition federally.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's an excuse Trudeau uses. It's all about getting to most money they can while continuing the social responsibility lie.

I do doubt that the US would be handwringing about international treaties if they ever decided to remove cannabis prohibition federally.

I agree...this is domestic political theatre in Canada, where the dopers can't figure out how those "dumb redneck 'muricans" managed to legalize pot before Canada, and Trudeau hasn't delivered on his big "promise". High times indeed.

[nerve]

and Canada's need to centralize the distribution of controlled substances.

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.

Edited March 10, 2016 by nerve

[eyeball]

Hard to say, but it looks like some Canadians are still waiting for the USA to lead the way. Sad.....

Yep, that's certainly been the case with pot and not just some Canadians but many. Now they're cringing around the same old "but what will the neighbours think" excuse on the global catwalk.

[Boges]

Vice recently did a segment on the big business that weed is becoming in the US.

http://www.vice.com/read/beating-blindness-white-collar-weed-404

So if large producers corner the market and drive the price of black market weed down so much then I can see a heavily taxed government monopoly work but only because the government will be the ones picking the winner and much like Ontario's sojourn into beer and wine sales in grocery stores. Only the big players can afford to play ball because the government gets it's piece first.

I find it so ironic that the one dude from Ohio claims he's a "capitalist" when he's getting the government to allow him to be one of only 10 people that could produce legal weed in the state.

I don't trust Canadian governments with distributing this in a completely anti-competitive manor that only enriches a select few.

[G Huxley]

So the Trudeau government continues to treat as criminals non criminals, while the ministers sit on their salaries paid for by you and me to not fulfill their promises.

Yeah real change in Ottawa. Or maybe they are all just too busy with their Ashley Maddison accounts there to do their jobs.

One thing should be pretty obvious if Trudeau doesn't legalize cannabis by the next election he should expect to lose a considerable chunk of votes, which is probably why he is importing the Islamics by the tens of thousands to make up for votes lost.

That's it treat Canadian citizens like dirt and then bring in 10s of thousands who have religious fundamentalist values, who can then help maintain the authoritarian state.

Edited March 10, 2016 by G Huxley

[nerve]

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.

In a major policy U-turn, Queen’s Park will ban the smoking and vaping of medicinal pot in all enclosed public places, workplaces, and many outdoor areas as well as curb the use and sale of e-cigarettes.

The president of NB Liquor is heading a committee looking at what might happen should Canadian liquor stores be asked to sell marijuana. The committee is being chaired by NB Liquor president Brian Harriman, and was set up by the association of Canada's 13 liquor boards, the Canadian Association of Liquor Jurisdictions. It's in response to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's statement he wants to decriminalize small amounts of the drug, and investigate its regulated sale.

The New Brunswick Pharmacists' Association has said patients will be best served when professionals are involved in dispensing a drug."We do know that marijuana does have impacts on a person's health and certainly has certain interactions with other medications," said Paul Blanchard, executive director of the association. "Our members are concerned from a health perspective that our members should be part of that process.

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.

Marijuana amplifies anticoagulant efffects of aspirin, warfarin, and other, anticoagulants. It can effect blood sugar levesl in diabetics. Can cause low blood pressure in people taking low blood pressure medication.

effects liver's cytochrome P450 enzyme system.

amplifies drowsiness if used with benzodiazepines such as lorazepam (Ativan®) or diazepam (Valium®), barbiturates such as phenobarbital, narcotics such as codeine, some antidepressants, and alcohol. Caution is advised while driving or operating machinery.

Marijuana may also interact with agents that may affect blood vessel width, agents that may affect the immune system, agents that may be toxic to the liver, agents that may improve breathing or treat lung disorders, agents that may increase appetite, agents that may treat heart disorders, agents that may treat nausea or vomiting, agents that may treat nervous system disorders, agents that may treat psychiatric disorders, agents that may treat retrovirus infections (HIV), agents that may treat skin disorders, agents that may treat stomach disorders, anabolic steroids, anticancer agents, antipyrine, antiseizure agents, bromo-dragonFLY, cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonists, central nervous system depressants, cocaine, corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists, ecstasy, estrogens, fertility agents, hormonal agents, nicotine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, opioid receptor antagonists, pain relievers, p-glycoprotein-regulated agents, prochlorperazine, sedatives, and synthetic cannabinoids.

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.

• Sedative medications (Barbiturates) interacts with MARIJUANA
  

  Marijuana might cause sleepiness and drowsiness. Medications that cause sleepiness are called sedatives. Taking marijuana along with sedative medications might cause too much sleepiness.

• Sedative medications (CNS depressants) interacts with MARIJUANA
  

  Marijuana might cause sleepiness and drowsiness. Medications that cause sleepiness are called sedatives. Taking marijuana along with sedative medications might cause too much sleepiness.
  
  Some sedative medications include clonazepam (Klonopin), lorazepam (Ativan), phenobarbital (Donnatal), zolpidem (Ambien), and others.

• Theophylline interacts with MARIJUANA
  

  Taking marijuana might decrease the effects of theophylline. But there isn't enough information to know if this is a big concern.

Moderate Interaction Be cautious with this combination

• Disulfiram (Antabuse) interacts with MARIJUANA
  

  Disulfiram (Antabuse) might interact with marijuana. Taking marijuana along with Disulfiram can cause agitation, trouble sleeping, and irritability.

• Fluoxetine (Prozac) interacts with MARIJUANA
  

  Taking marijuana with fluoxetine (Prozac) might cause you to feel irritated, nervous, jittery, and excited. Doctors call this hypomania.

Minor Interaction Be watchful with this combination

• Warfarin (Coumadin) interacts with MARIJUANA
  

  Using marijuana might increase the effects of warfarin (Coumadin). Smoking marijuana while taking warfarin (Coumadin) might increase the chance of bruising and bleeding.

The tax revenue derived from the sale of legalized pot would split about $5 billion per year between federal and provincial coffers, according to a recent report from CIBC World Markets, based on the apparent size of the current underground market and how legalization has played out for the state governments of Colorado and Washington. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxes/tax-time-2016-legalized-pot-1.3436516

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.

Edited March 10, 2016 by nerve

[eyeball]

The way it acts to amplify medications seems to almost scream, lower their dose and add a dose of pot.

Again, recall when the Olympic doping committee investigated the possibility that THC enhanced the performance of a busted athlete.

[overthere]

It's an excuse Trudeau uses. It's all about getting to most money they can while continuing the social responsibility lie.

I do doubt that the US would be handwringing about international treaties if they ever decided to remove cannabis prohibition federally.

Yep. Justin has backed himself into a corner and needs time to dump this turd of a file on somebody else. The 'somebody else' will be the provinces. He will attempt to dazzle them with the sugarplums of new revenue, while leaving them with any social consequences and the awful specter of enforcement required to keep out efficient private sector pot sellers. I expect the first bribe to the provinces will be an offer by the feds to forego any taxes, and let the provinces do all taxation and licensing. All he really has to do then is remove it from the Criminal Code , clap his hands and presto another promise fulfilled. Yikes.

Trudeau has already garnered all the votes he'll ever get from this promise, it is all downhill electorally from here.

[Smallc]

Yep. Justin has backed himself into a corner and needs time to dump this turd of a file on somebody else. The 'somebody else' will be the provinces.

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.

[dre]

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 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.

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