New federal medical marijuana regulations

[LiamHaddock]

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/marijuana-regulation-has-clearly-failed-says-mp-ralph-goodale-who-calls-legalization-the-best-option
Marijuana regulation in Canada and the United States has let down teenagers in both countries, who are among the most prolific pot smokers in the world, according to the federal minister of public safety and emergency preparedness.

At the same time, the $2.3 billion that Canada spends on “obviously ineffective” enforcement each year, coupled with the huge flow of cash to organized criminals, suggest the present system has “clearly failed,” Ralph Goodale told reporters Tuesday in Saskatoon.

discussions with the U.S. government about its approach to marijuana regulation and border control are ongoing.

“(We want to) make sure that they understand the principle here is to make marijuana less available to young people and to cut off the flow — literally billions of illegal money, that flows to organized crime every year.”

[LiamHaddock]

http://www.obj.ca/Local/2016-09-15/article-4641418/Canopy-Growth-Corp.-aiming-to-dominate-the-world-marijuana-market,-CEO-says/1
Mr. Linton said Canopy is already working on new products to compete directly with alcohol, including beverages infused with THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Such drinks could come in a multitude of flavours and in different strengths comparable to beer, wine and spirits, he added, but without the nasty side-effects of booze such as hangovers and weight gain.

“The alcohol market’s a funny one,” Mr. Linton told OBJ after his speech. “It’s very fickle. Some genius invented flavoured vodka. Now everybody’s spending their money on brown alcohols that are stored for long times. I think because of its fickle nature, (alcohol) is susceptible to disruption from other products. The products that we’re bringing to market are substantial disruptors. I think that category is always open and we have a new, better answer.”

“We wanted to make really clear that the Canadian public understood we were going to be going very aggressively after the recreational market,” Mr. Linton told the audience, adding his company’s goal is to eventually capture 40 per cent of that market.

“I believe there is going to jobs, training and an opportunity to create a huge, international group of companies that all started in Canada. We shouldn’t squander it.”

[LiamHaddock]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jordan-bateman/marijuana-city-tax-trudeau_b_11997904.html
Later this month, at the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) meeting in Victoria, city politicians will debate resolutions from the Duncan, Nelson and Prince George city councils calling on the federal and provincial governments to send a portion of marijuana taxes to local governments.

Cities don't get a cut of alcohol or cigarette taxes, so why should marijuana be treated differently? Besides, if the pro-legalization activists are correct, cities will come out ahead by cutting policing costs in their communities.

Nelson's own motion notes that enforcement costs will be "significantly reduced," which means property taxpayers across the province should see savings in their local police contracts. This has been a cornerstone of the marijuana legalization argument for years: we spend too much money policing minor pot offences. Dump those efforts, save some bucks.

Or, as Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson has said, "Widespread access to marijuana for our youth, grow-ops that provide funds for organized crime, and significant costs to taxpayers for enforcement are all compelling reasons to re-examine our failed approach to prohibition."

[Smurf]

LiamHaddock quoted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jordan-bat ... 97904.html
Later this month, at the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) meeting in Victoria, city politicians will debate resolutions from the Duncan, Nelson and Prince George city councils calling on the federal and provincial governments to send a portion of marijuana taxes to local governments.

Cities don't get a cut of alcohol or cigarette taxes, so why should marijuana be treated differently? Besides, if the pro-legalization activists are correct, cities will come out ahead by cutting policing costs in their communities.

Nelson's own motion notes that enforcement costs will be "significantly reduced," which means property taxpayers across the province should see savings in their local police contracts. This has been a cornerstone of the marijuana legalization argument for years: we spend too much money policing minor pot offences. Dump those efforts, save some bucks.

Or, as Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson has said, "Widespread access to marijuana for our youth, grow-ops that provide funds for organized crime, and significant costs to taxpayers for enforcement are all compelling reasons to re-examine our failed approach to prohibition."

If the information in Jennifer Smith's article Marijuana Mayhem in the SEPT. 16th Vernon Morning Star was properly researched and true I doubt any one will see much saving in law enforcement and definitely not health care.

http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/opinion/393589821.html

Marijuana traffic related deaths increased 48 per cent between 2013-2015 since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana compared to the three-year average prior to legalization. The report also notes that all traffic deaths increased 11 per cent during the time frame.

For youth, past month marijuana use increased 20 per cent in 2013/2014 compared to the two years prior. Meanwhile nationally youth past month marijuana use declined four per cent. For college age the increase is 17 per cent in Colorado while nationally it increased two per cent. In adults the increase is 63 per cent in Colorado while nationally it increased 21 per cent.

Hospitalizations related to marijuana jumped from 6,305 in 2011 to 11,439 in 2014.

Meanwhile the Colorado annual tax revenue from the sale of recreational and medical marijuana was $115 million (about .5 per cent of the statewide budget).

If I remember correctly from the little I have read Washington's results are about the same. Also I have read and seen shows on TV where they claim that legalization has done little to slow the black market in Colorado. Apparently the criminals have just adjusted their prices and are having no problem finding customers.

This does not look to me like there will be much gain even with the tax income. Based on Colorado our tax income will not be that high if we wish to control the black market. I just hope that the people doing are new regulations are very careful in what they do and avoid mistakes others have already made.

[Smurf]

Wonder if the regulators will be looking at this or if it will be left up to local governments to regulate.

Regulations for marijuana odours sought in Vernon

The smell of marijuana is causing a stink within Vernon city hall.

A majority of council directed city staff Monday to research potential methods to regulate marijuana odours after a request from Coun. Scott Anderson.

“There have been complaints during the harvest season when the smell becomes intolerable,” he said.

Anderson hopes the process will determine what legal procedures municipalities have to tackle odours from legal and illegal marijuana grow operations in residential neighbourhoods.

However, not everyone supports Anderson’s plans.

Opposition to Anderson’s motion came from Councillors Juliette Cunningham and Dalvir Nahal.

Nahal insists marijuana grow operations aren’t the business of the city.

“It (marijuana) is a federal and provincial jurisdiction so we shouldn’t be imposing it at the municipal level,” she said.

http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/393764231.html

[Salamander420]

Well I am more then happy with the new regs

[LiamHaddock]

If the information in Jennifer Smith's article Marijuana Mayhem in the SEPT. 16th Vernon Morning Star was properly researched and true I doubt any one will see much saving in law enforcement and definitely not health care.

http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/opinion/393589821.html

Marijuana traffic related deaths increased 48 per cent between 2013-2015 since Colorado legalized ......

.

That link you shared is based on the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA) it seems....in that case

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/09/17/supposedly-neutral-federal-report-stacks-the-deck-against-marijuana-legalization/#421d9a6453ac
Drugged Driving

The report says “there was a 32 percent increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths” after legal recreational sales began in 2014 (emphasis in the original). Here is an interesting fact about “marijuana-related traffic deaths”: They do not necessarily have anything to do with marijuana. The report uses this phrase to describe fatalities from accidents involving vehicle operators who “tested positive for marijuana,” which could indicate the presence of inactive metabolites or THC levels so low that they had no impact on driving performance. A positive result does not mean a driver was impaired at the time of the crash, let alone that marijuana contributed to the accident.

..often these studies are exaggerated/false for the same reasons. I'm not saying more people aren't using marijuana and driving but the numbers don't tell the whole story usually...

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/16/anti- ... crashes-in
Heritage Foundation analyst Cully Stimson claims "fatal driving accidents [in Washington] have risen 122 percent between 2010 and 2014." If fatal crashes more than doubled in Washington between 2010 and 2014, it would have been a dramatic reversal of a downward trend that had prevailed for decades in that state and across the country. But according to the source Stimson cites, the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission (WSTSC), there were 429 fatal crashes in 2014, compared to 422 in 2010. That's an increase of 1.7 percent. The change Stimson describes is 72 times as big.

What about fatal collisions in which a driver tested positive for marijuana? Those rose from 78 in 2010 to 86 in 2014, an increase of about 10 percent. Meanwhile, fatal crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers fell 24 percent, from 135 in 2010 to 103 in 2014. Total fatal crashes involving alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs fell by about 5 percent, from 218 in 2010 to 208 in 2014.

So what is Stimson talking about? It seems he is referring to the number of drivers in fatal accidents who tested positive for active THC (as opposed to an inactive metabolite) and did not test positive for alcohol or other drugs. According to a 2015 WSTSC report, that number rose from nine in 2010 to 20 in 2014, which is indeed a 122 percent increase. But a 122 percent increase in fatal accidents involving THC-only drivers does not translate into anything like a 122 percent increase in the total number of fatal accidents.

I'm not sure why Stimson chose 2010 as the baseline year, since Washington voters approved marijuana legalization at the end of 2012 and legal recreational sales did not begin until the middle of 2014. The number of THC-only drivers in fatal crashes rose from 13 in 2012 to 20 in 2014—a 54 percent increase, or less than half the increase highlighted by Stimson. Again, that does not mean there was a 54 percent increase in fatal crashes, which in fact rose by less than 7 percent during this period.

As the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety noted in a recent study, the fact that a driver tests positive for THC does not necessarily mean he was impaired at the time of the crash or that marijuana contributed to the accident.

Marijuana legalization could lead to more dangerously stoned drivers on the roads, which could in turn lead to more fatal accidents (especially if the stoned drivers are also drunk, since alcohol and marijuana compound each other's effects on driving ability). Then again, legalization could reduce the number of fatal accidents, to the extent that more cannabis consumption is accompanied by less drinking. Or legalization's impact on traffic safety could be a wash. Contrary to the impression left by prohibitionists like Stimson, it is far too early to say which of these scenarios is coming to pass.

http://www.livescience.com/54693-high-drivers-double-after-marijuana-legalization.html
The team found that prior to legalization, about 8.3 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes had THC in their blood, but after legalization, 17 percent of drivers had THC in their blood. Of that 17 percent, about two-thirds also had some other drugs or alcohol in their system. The total number of fatal crashes also went up slightly, the study found. [Marijuana vs. Alcohol: Which Is Really Worse for Your Health?]

"It was a small bump, but it was a small bump at a time that fatal crashes were going down in the rest of the country," Nelson told Live Science.

While the study can't prove that marijuana was a key cause of those crashes, it is likely that marijuana is at least one contributor to those fatal crashes, Nelson said.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/marijuana-doesnt-pose-significant-risk-in-car-crashes-nhtsa-says/
According to a new study commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, people who smoke marijuana have a minimally higher risk of crashing than those who stay sober. During a 20-month study of 10,858 drivers in Virginia Beach, researchers working 24/7 compared drug and alcohol readings from people involved in crashes against similar people (at the same time of day and location) who kept their cars intact. The main takeaway: When factoring age, sex, and race, there was no “significant increased risk of crash involvement” due to marijuana use. Excluding those demographics, NHTSA said stoners had a 25-percent higher risk of crashing but at the same time attributed that increase to a greater representation of younger, predominantly male drivers who already top actuarial spreadsheets for loss and damages. Weird as it seems, the actual measured risk of THC-registered drivers, at five percent higher than sober drivers, dropped to zero when those drivers had also consumed alcohol. (You may have heard some uproar in 2013 about random police checkpoints asking drivers for anonymous blood, saliva, and breath samples. That was part of a separate survey, and right now, the marijuana study is the only one of its kind to correlate marijuana impairment and vehicle accidents in such an exacting way.)

Again not saying we should all drive stoned...but it may not be as big of a concern as we are told to believe it is...

[LiamHaddock]

If I remember correctly from the little I have read Washington's results are about the same. Also I have read and seen shows on TV where they claim that legalization has done little to slow the black market in Colorado. Apparently the criminals have just adjusted their prices and are having no problem finding customers.

This does not look to me like there will be much gain even with the tax income. Based on Colorado our tax income will not be that high if we wish to control the black market. I just hope that the people doing are new regulations are very careful in what they do and avoid mistakes others have already made.

Thankfully our government is legalizing at federal level so we won't have the problem with marijuana being worth significantly more in different parts of the country. Also with the high price/tax model they are using its simply creating more customers for the well established black market. The very same thing could happen here. Thankfully our government has stated they are going to keep taxes low and try to disrupt the black market.

I hope we can succeed in getting the majority to buy from legal sources and remove some profits from criminals but if not at least some will and high quality marijuana will be legal and available for all Canadian adults regardless of where you live. Hopefully we will see marijuana tourism, businesses, lounges ect. Maybe alcohol use will go down. May benefits of marijuana legalization besides profits.

[LiamHaddock]

Wonder if the regulators will be looking at this or if it will be left up to local governments to regulate.

Regulations for marijuana odours sought in Vernon

The smell of marijuana is causing a stink within Vernon city hall.

A majority of council directed city staff Monday to research potential methods to regulate marijuana odours after a request from Coun. Scott Anderson.

“There have been complaints during the harvest season when the smell becomes intolerable,” he said.

I don't like tobacco smell, I don't like the smell of Chinese food, I don't like the smell of rotting garbage...I move away from the smells I don't like, problem solved...I believe it will be treated like any other obnoxious smell we have to deal with living in cities with neighbors.
I can't find much on Canada and where recreational marijuana users will be able to smoke.. I know the rules are pretty relaxed for medical marijuana patients. You can "medicate" in any smoking areas and really anywhere in public but of course you should be polite to others and avoid smoke from going there way if possible.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/25/using-medical-marijuana-now-ok-in-public-places-in-ontario-under-new-regulations.html
“This is about the fact that somebody who’s very ill, maybe in a lot of pain, wants to use. There are many ways to take marijuana. This is one way.”

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said she’s concerned about people being exposed to second-hand marijuana smoke or vapour, although she wants to take a closer look at the regulations.

“That’s something we need to keep in mind…we need to take a closer look,” she said, joking that if someone was smoking medical pot beside her in a restaurant that “I’ll probably eat more.”

Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown didn’t quarrel with the regulations and said he wouldn’t make “political hay” of the issue.

“If it’s for medical purposes, it’s for medical purposes,” he said. “There’s not going to be an overwhelming amount of people in Ontario running out to parks to have their medical marijuana.”

[Smurf]

LiamHaddock wrote:


Again not saying we should all drive stoned...but it may not be as big of a concern as we are told to believe it is...

May being the important word there and I believe it can go either way. Right.

The Washington one didn't increase 122% percent but I believe it did increase while other figures went down if I read it right.

I also noticed you didn't address the increased use and hospital visits, or did I miss it. I still say it doesn't look near as rosy as the pro side always claim. We need to be very, very careful to get this one right.

[LiamHaddock]

Sigh...if u read the links I shared...multiple reports have been discredited for the same reasons. It a common trend with all studies in marijuana and driving.

I've yet to see one that hasn't been.

Its a big maybe and the article discussed was once again using one of the flawed studies.
I was just pointing that out..

If broad claims are being made its good to have the alternative info/data.

The fact is most/all studies ive managed to find don't accurately determine if the user was impaired or simply had thc in their blood from days/weeks earlier...
there flawed studies designed to create a heightened false sense of fear aka reefer madness.
The sky is not going to fall and cars aren't piling up in accidents everywhere with stoned drivers, it just isn't happening. The data simply doesn't support that. The data shows that more people will smoke marijuana sometime in the last few days/weeks and then drive a car and possibly get in an accident.. that doesn't mean they were high at time of accident or that marijuana had anything to do with it.

As for more peope going to the hospital..that maybe the case ..again a lot of time in reports marijuana isn't separated from other drug use/marijuana is simply in the blood from weeks/days before.

Yes some peope may end up in hospital from edibles/being to high/tripping out...still not as bad as peope going to the hospital from alcohol poisoning.

I've yet to see anything showing marijuana use alone is causing a huge increase in hospital visits. Yes marijuana is showing up more but also they are looking/testing for marijuana use more and not always proper separating marijuana from other risky/harmful life choices...

Risky harmful choices will still land you in the hospital regardless of if you smoke a joint or not lol...

From same link I shared above

Emergency Room Visits and Hospitalizations

In 2014, the report says, “there was a 29 percent increase in the number of marijuana-related emergency room visits” and “a 38 percent increase in the number of marijuana-related hospitalizations.” Like “marijuana-related traffic deaths,” “marijuana-related emergency room visits” and “marijuana-related hospitalizations” are not necessarily marijuana-related. As the report explains, these numbers, also known as “marijuana mentions,” refer to patients whose marijuana use was determined by lab tests, self-reports, or “some other form of validation by the physician.” The fact that a patient had used marijuana at some point “does not necessarily prove marijuana was the cause of the emergency admission or hospitalization.”

[LiamHaddock]

“The cannabis industry in British Columbia is estimated to be a multibillion-dollar industry,” spokesman Dieter MacPherson said Thursday.

“The Independent Cannabis Alliance wants to preserve the current cannabis economy and believes that the best way to do this is to allow current good actors from the illicit economy to be regulated, taxed and included.”

MacPherson said the right kinds of regulations could sustain thousands of jobs and create economic opportunity.

Jaclynn Pahota from Cannabis Growers of Canada said B.C. already has about 40,000 agricultural workers employed in the cannabis sector.

People involved in the industry want to see a “fair cannabis marketplace” and to have the same responsibilities as other businesses do, she said

The alliance believes production and distribution of marijuana are provincial issues, and B.C. should have a major role to play, he said.

“We’re hoping the province steps up and fights for the small guy.”

- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local ... AqP7Z.dpuf

[fluffy]

We need to be very, very careful to get this one right.

Exactly. That means credible sources of research without bias in either direction, a considerable challenge.

[LiamHaddock]

Exactly. That means credible sources of research without bias in either direction, a considerable challenge.

Thats the problem..so much information is out there and repeated but when you look at sources they are often discredited sources.

One must take everything with a grain of salt and research everything they read and fact/source check it. As we have seen and discussed as recently as today, many are quick to react to a scary article headline or statistic but once you look into the studies the articles are based on they are often heavily flawed for one reason or another...

I agree there is lot of biased articles on both benefits and harms of marijuana. I'm glad people are sharing studies and info though it's good to discuss them.

No one should just believe anything someone posts on an Internet forum. As always I encourage people to research both sides of any issue.

The more you research marijuana the more you'll realize most alarming scary studies/articles have been discredited and are just typical plain old reefer madness designed to scare people.

[fluffy]

I've had a few tokes in my day, some stuff that would put you in couch lock for a couple of hours. That's why I'm always skeptical of people who downplay the effects.