Sensible BC

[flamingfingers]

^^
Donald, if you claim to be so highly educated as your above seems to indicate, you should have no difficulty whatsoever in explaining why YOU view a high THC content in cannabis with such angst.

[Donald G]

To flamingfingers, Gixxer, jennylives, etc

I proactively "claimed" nothing. You are the ones who demanded answers regarding my qualifications.

Keep in mind that all of you have been pushing for some time to know my qualifications. Using various insults to suggest that I had none. If flamingfingers had read my previous comments he would have known them. They were stated previously, FOR THE SAME REASON, on the Sensible BC thread.

Since I have now given you my very general background as concerns drugs and criminal drug gangs perhaps each of you self proclaimed experts can do the same. Just for the record I HAVE been declared an expert in Criminal Court in matters concening marijuana grow operations. One of my jobs for several years was to accumulate intelligence when search warrants were executed on identified criminal drug gang connected marijuana grows and other drug operations.

You demanded it. You got it. Now live with it or list YOUR qualifications.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Some people who do not understand why THC content is important to criminal drug gangs need more information to understand why that is true.

When I was a teenager I could buy a joint for 50 cents ( rolled up and ready to go ). I did not ask what the THC content was. Couldn't care less. I took it, smoked it and enjoyed it. I have no idea what the world is like now ( I only smoked pot a few times ) but I would wager that it is exactly the same. Whatever the kids can get their hands on to get a buzz. Pretty much the same with alcohol. Beer, wine, cider, hard liquor anything they can find to go out and party.
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't take drugs so I really don't care but let's face it none of it will ever go away so decriminalizing marijuana is the only sensible thing to do .. IMO

[Donald G]

To SmokeOnTheWater ...

Providing you mean further medicalizing and decriminalizing small personal amounts of marijuana for presently medical and later "destressing" purposes (like the much more harmful to the individual and society liquor and cigarettes) I would agree with you. Possible SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN harms to be identified and responded to as identified. Like the effect of THC on people with a genetic predisposition to various psychoses, especially if the THC is ingested during the formative (child and early teen) years.

I see the present marijuana "enabling" to take effect April 1 to be a step in that (the right) direction

[flamingfingers]

Possible SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN harms to be identified and responded to as identified.

So you agree that 'harms' have not yet been scientifically identified and responded to?

Like the effect of THC on people with a genetic predisposition to various psychoses, especially if the THC is ingested during the formative (child and early teen) years.

Again this is only a theory, not scientifically proven which would suggest only a very small percentage of the population MAY POSSIBLY be affected.

Prohibition of cannabis was racist, ignorant and manipulative. Prohibition of cannabis while perhaps not racist any longer is still ignorant and manipulative.

[Donald G]

To flamingfingers ...

I am still awaiting your self proclaimed qualifications.

That may explain the adamant but inaccurate comments you frequently make. Like the eartly onset of various psychoses by young people ingesting THC during their formative years being nothing but a theory.

Non peer reviewed testing in Britain, Israel, Denmark, the United States and Canada have all had the same results. It is presently being taught in most medical schools to medical students.

[flamingfingers]

To flamingfingers ...

I am still awaiting your self proclaimed qualifications.

I have PhDs in Life Experience, Common Sense and BS Detection.

[Donald G]

WADR that makes you an average Canadian Citizen. Nothing there that would indicate the origin of your self professed expertice regarding marijuana and marijuana as it relates to criminal drug gangs. Any qualifications relating to marijuana or criminal drug gangs?

[flamingfingers]

^Enough to realize that 'criminal drug gangs' are not particularly interested in marijuana any more - high THC or not.

[Donald G]

To flamingfingers ...

Do you speak for all of the approximately 200 criminal gangs (latest police tally) that are operating in B.C. at the moment when you say they gangs no longer have an interest in marijuana? WADR I seriously doubt the validity of your comment as a blanket statement.

Nothing you have ever said on this or any other string leads me to believe that you are even in a position to know that information. To most people gross exaggeration is a forms of stating false information.

[flamingfingers]

^Well then Donald, if 'approximately 200 criminal gangs' are fighting for access to marijuana, how come the producers (I know of quite a few) are sitting on their product because the price of 'BC Bud' is so low (approximately half the price it was a year ago)? Quite a few have cut their losses and are seeking oilfield jobs in Alberta. Critical thinking skills suggest that the 'approximately 200 criminal gangs' are finding sources other than MJ to turn their profit. Meth, cocaine, heroin and ecstasy are much easier to either brew up in a kitchen/lab or access and resell and pound for pound yield a higher profit than several kilos of MJ.

[Donald G]

To flamingfingers ...

Simple supply and demand. There is a glut of marijuana at the moment. How many thousand grows have been trying to unload their product before the April 1 deadline? And that does not include the strictly criminal drug gang contracted grows. Especially now that Health Canada has indicated that they will be reporting grows that fail to shut down as required. I imagine grow equipment is selling pretty cheap at the moment too. Gangs are completely opportunistic in terms of how and where to make money. What's your point?

[JLives]

So people currently illegally selling their product want to illegally sell it all before it becomes illegal on April 1st? Sure, makes sense.

[Donald G]

To jennylives ...

And the thousands of 100, 200 and 400 plus plant LEGAL grows who have been selling their excess product illegally. Who have to be rid of their grow and product by April 1 or be reported to the police by Health Canada?

The ones who forced the government to cancel home grows on the honor system?

You consistently ignore information that does not support your PREDETERMINED "legalize all quantities and qualities of marijuana at any cost" wishes.

[Veovis]

So people currently illegally selling their product want to illegally sell it all before it becomes illegal on April 1st? Sure, makes sense.

Close thought but missed a small point. People that can legally grow a product right now and selling a little extra on the side illegally need to get rid of all product before they can no longer legally grow it and get caught entirely. This would create an increase in supply as people liquidate.

The fact this occurs is a large reason why "you can grow your own" is going away (in my opinion)