Castanet

Opeeved wrote:This move forward, I consider to be the best any gov't has made in decades. The fact the federal liberal platform was elected spells plain as day that the majority of Canadians feel it was over due. We've separated regular folk from predatory criminals.

Give it a few years and we will likely see the pendulum swing back to the right. Canadian voters do not so much elect new governments as they fire the old ones.

That being said, marijuana use in general is still a highly contentious issue, something any career politician will tread likely around. I think the changes in liquor laws and the pending changes in pot laws reflect an aging population, with younger ideas replacing the status quo. I have used both pot and alcohol extensively in the past and while my own path these days is one of abstinence, I see pot as safer than booze. But at the end of the day both are an escape of sorts and we all have a responsibility to use them safely as well as insure that those who cannot make that distinction for themselves are protected. That, in a nutshell, illustrates the need for a system of control and distribution.

Dear Fluffy....totally in favour of legislation to just legalize all aspects of marijuana...period. And forget about it.
It's only when government gets involved that it gets sticky because the only reason government wants control is for the money.
The idea of protecting young people is hogwash as it will always be available down the street. Money saved from not having to enforce an impossible situation is money made from doing nothing. Seems like a win to me. Why is it legal to make one's own wine and beer but not spirits? Money, pure and simple. It could be argued that because of "regulations" fewer people are going blind from shoddy distilling but alcoholism is still happening despite the high cost of product. My last calculation of taxes on wine was 123%. Money is a powerful motivator and government is reluctant to let a possible additional sin tax go unplumbed.
Cheers!

RandyDandy wrote:The idea of protecting young people is hogwash as it will always be available down the street.

You don't think that legalization would have the same effect on the illegal pot trade that the end of prohibition had on the illegal booze trade? Consider as well the stigma attached to selling drugs to kids and the penalties for that. I think the private market will go farther underground, likely out of reach to many.

Money is a powerful motivator and government is reluctant to let a possible additional sin tax go unplumbed.

That it is.

RandyDandy wrote:Yoga is consciousness altering. As is beer. But not the "5" plants you'll be allowed to grow....if they're MALE. If you had 10 male plants could you still get busted? Where is the fine print?

Sorry, but male plants contain THC as well. No flowers perhaps but THC none the less. Besides, who would cultivate a male plant when female clone stock is so readily available?? 5 bucks a piece.
Moot argument.

fluffy wrote:

Opeeved wrote:This move forward, I consider to be the best any gov't has made in decades. The fact the federal liberal platform was elected spells plain as day that the majority of Canadians feel it was over due. We've separated regular folk from predatory criminals.

Give it a few years and we will likely see the pendulum swing back to the right. Canadian voters do not so much elect new governments as they fire the old ones.

That being said, marijuana use in general is still a highly contentious issue, something any career politician will tread likely around. I think the changes in liquor laws and the pending changes in pot laws reflect an aging population, with younger ideas replacing the status quo. I have used both pot and alcohol extensively in the past and while my own path these days is one of abstinence, I see pot as safer than booze. But at the end of the day both are an escape of sorts and we all have a responsibility to use them safely as well as insure that those who cannot make that distinction for themselves are protected. That, in a nutshell, illustrates the need for a system of control and distribution.

and why I'vE respected you for years. And isn't why your last Sentence is a need for this legislation?

And no, there's no tell going back. The world is changing. So many of us are not interested in morality and non scientific, non evidence based ideological policy. We can't save every one, we can save most of us and most of our collective money.

Greetings Fluffy
Wouldn't mind reading your thoughts on the castanet article "Police not ready for legal pot".

I think the RCMP need to figure it out. What other business in the country get's to say, oh wait, i'm not ready can you please delay your regulation changes (that got you voted in by the way) so we can be ready.

Plus the argument that if we don't wait the criminal element will thrive, well guess what, that is happening now.

Liberals and selfie boy made a promise - best keep it.

RandyDandy wrote:Wouldn't mind reading your thoughts on the castanet article "Police not ready for legal pot".

It's looking like this is going to be a learn-as-you-go experience for everyone. We'll have to wait and see what sort of unforeseen implications are going to need police intervention. I'd like to know more about the "impairment testing" they mentioned, I thought reliable impairment testing was still in the works. I work in a very safety conscious industrial setting where drug alcohol testing is mandatory. It's always been a bone of contention that enough residue to flunk the old standard urine test remains in your system for weeks after any degree of impairment has disappeared.

How is the police a "business?"

The reality is that the police need time to educate the public on the problems associated with impaired driving by drug.

People will think that legal pot means ok to drive.

Its not.

There's a ton of "medicine" out there that says "do not operate vehicles" when on it and no one blinks but suggest to a pot user that it affects their ability to drive and Whoa!

Chyren wrote:How is the police a "business?"

The reality is that the police need time to educate the public on the problems associated with impaired driving by drug.

People will think that legal pot means ok to drive.

Its not.

There's a ton of "medicine" out there that says "do not operate vehicles" when on it and no one blinks but suggest to a pot user that it affects their ability to drive and Whoa!

people still drive drunk or on pills. and no one is saying go smoke up and drive . thats just reefer madness and shows lack of knowledge . your brain has cannibaniod recpters humans were designed to use it.

Chyren wrote:People will think that legal pot means ok to drive.

Its not.

There's a ton of "medicine" out there that says "do not operate vehicles" when on it and no one blinks but suggest to a pot user that it affects their ability to drive and Whoa!

I don't understand why so many people speculate that the roads will get filled with drivers under the influence of MJ if/when it becomes legal. It is illegal now and many are driving. Just like legal prescription drug users that recommend not operating motor vehicles are driving around too. Same with alcohol - look how many repeat offenders get nabbed all the time.

None of them are right but I would rather take my chances driving along side the MJ users than the boozers or pill poppers.....

The legality of the product will make no difference.

These opinions on driving are very narrow minded.

Watch and see what happens.