[peck420]

andyt andyt:

peck420 peck420:

Curtman Curtman:

Unless everybody legalizes, Canada legalizing will do nothing other then bring the violence here.

We are a tiny population base. Our legalization of marijuana won't have any effect on the global crime market. The only thing it will change is where every gang goes to grow their weed.

Then they will fight over who gets control of Canadian production, and that will bring a nice drug war home...yay! So much for ending the violence.

For the violence to end, the major markets will have to legalize production and consumption. Even the US, alone won't be enough.

We already have the violence here.

What you say makes no sense - criminals will come here to grow pot legally, but commit violence to see who can do so? What, the govt is just going to stand by and issue licenses to grow pot to the last gangster standing? If there's violence, it's around illegal growing - you know, like we have now. Meanwhile they will be way outcompeted by the legal growers who have much lower costs.

Man, people come up with some nutty ideas.

So there is no difference between Mexico and Canada?

Nutty isn't the term I would use for you two...doesn't quite convey the level of idiocy.

Since we have a fairly recent example of prohibition, let's actually review the results that occurred when the insignificant population removed prohibition first...all of the major population crime elements took over. That didn't end until the major population ended their prohibition...and 'end' is not very accurate. Most of those criminal elements continue to operate in Canada to this day.

And all of that goodness was with criminals that had some level of code.

You guys are so eager to create the ideal situation for these elements, I strongly urge you to go live with them for a bit first.

Watch your heads!

[Curtman]

peck420 peck420:

Since we have a fairly recent example of prohibition, let's actually review the results that occurred when the insignificant population removed prohibition first...all of the major population crime elements took over. That didn't end until the major population ended their prohibition...and 'end' is not very accurate. Most of those criminal elements continue to operate in Canada to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Bronfman

$1:

Samuel Bronfman, CC (February 27, 1889 – July 10, 1971) was a Canadian business magnate and philanthropist. He founded Distillers Corporation Limited, and is a member of the Canadian Jewish Bronfman family.
...
In 1903, the family bought a hotel business, and young Samuel, noting that much of the profit was in alcoholic beverages, set up shop as a liquor distributor. He founded the Distillers Corporation in Montreal in 1924, specializing in cheap whiskey, and concurrently taking advantage of the U.S. prohibition on alcoholic beverages. The Bronfmans found great success bootlegging to the northern cities of the U.S. such as Boston, New York and Chicago during the Prohibition era, while operating from the perimeters of Montreal, Quebec where alcohol production was legal[3]

Bronfman's Distillers Corporation acquired Joseph E. Seagram & Sons of Waterloo, Ontario, from the heirs of Joseph Seagram in 1928. Bronfman eventually built an empire based on the appeal of brand names developed previously by Seagram—including Calvert, Dewars, and Seven Crown—to higher-level consumers. His sales were boosted during the United States' abortive experiment with prohibition, and he was apparently able to do so while staying within the confines of both Canadian law where prohibition laws had been previously repealed and American law, while dealing with unsavory characters such as the Chicago Outfit of gangster Al Capone.
His renamed company, Seagram Co. Ltd., became an international distributor of alcoholic beverages, and a diversified conglomerate which included an entertainment branch.
Because of changes to US tax law in the Lyndon Johnson administration, it became advantageous for Bronfman to purchase an oil company,[4] which he did with the purchase of Texas Pacific Coal and Oil Company in 1963 for $50 million. In 1980, the Bronfman heirs sold the Texas Pacific Oil holdings to Sun Oil Co. for $2.3 billion.[5]
The Seagram assets have since been acquired by other companies, notably The Coca-Cola Company, Diageo, and Pernod Ricard.
...
In 1952, he established the Samuel and Sadie Bronfman Family Foundation, one of Canada's major private granting foundations. Bronfman was President of the Canadian Jewish Congress from 1939 to 1962, and he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada in 1967.[6] In 1971, he helped to establish the Bronfman Building at McGill University, which houses the Desautels Faculty of Management. The building was named in his honour as appreciation for his donation to the university. The Bronfman family has continued its support of the university; in 1993 they created the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, and in 2002 donated the Seagram Building on Sherbrooke St. to McGill.

Terrible what's happened since Al Capone lost his monopoly.

P.S. Andy, you suck at quoting.

[andyt]

peck420 peck420:

So there is no difference between Mexico and Canada?

What do you mean? Pot is not legal in Mexico. There was no repeal of drug prohibition. The government spends all kinds of effort to fight gangs, but because of a culture of endemic corruption is even more ineffective than ours is in dealing with it. We could go that route very easily - no way all that money illegal drugs are producing isn't corrupting judges and cops here. When a judge lets an HA walk because "no way would he be stupid enough to keep cocaine in his locker, so it obviously wasn't his" - you have to wonder. Thank God it was reversed on appeal.

Your argument just makes no sense. Gangs get into drugs exactly because they are illegal and so it's possible to make a killing in producing and selling them, and do some killing as part of business, since it's already illegal. Worry more about us becoming like Mexico (as part of the US is) if we keep drugs illegal. Legal production is the best counterpoint against gangs, since legal production and sales costs will be so much lower.

[andyt]

peck420 peck420:

Since we have a fairly recent example of prohibition, let's actually review the results that occurred when the insignificant population removed prohibition first...all of the major population crime elements took over. That didn't end until the major population ended their prohibition...and 'end' is not very accurate. Most of those criminal elements continue to operate in Canada to this day.

And all of that goodness was with criminals that had some level of code.

You guys are so eager to create the ideal situation for these elements, I strongly urge you to go live with them for a bit first.

Watch your heads!

So Canada was rampant in crime after 1920 when prohibition was repealed, but the US was copacetic during prohibition? Brazil nuts, this time.

Guess we'll watch the rosy glow coming from WA and CO as those small populations get inundated with gangsters.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

peck420 peck420:

Curtman Curtman:

The ability for Canada to export marijuana will depend on laws in countries that want to receive it. Example: Canadian Asbestos Exports.

Oh yes, because international crime organizations are paragons of 'operation of law'.

No, what happens when El Heffe sets up his operations in Canada? What happens when international crime syndicates start basing their leadership out of our boarders? Do you think they are going to be exceptional little neighbours that will contain their criminal activities to other nations?

Don't count on it.

What happens when Los Zetas are flooding Vancouver, the new centre of their operation? All peaches and cream? It will just bring the ugliest end of the drug wars onto our soil.

We don't need to put Canada in a situation like that. We don't have the resources or the experience for it.

At best, we may be able to get decriminalization on possession, but we have a great deal of questions that will require answers before we can entertain any thoughts of complete legalization.

Riiight, because small scale legalization will bring in even more criminals.
Here's what you do. Allow individuals to grow 5-6 plants for themselves. Anything more than that requires a licence. Anyone caught growing more than the personal amount without a licence should be subject to double the current penalty, or immediately deported, depending on the circumstances of the individual.
A gram of weed cost the same to produce as one cigarette, which contains 0.8 grams of tobacco. The govt can tax pot at 5X the current rate for tobacco and still have the product sold for less than $100/oz. Compare to the current street price of $200-300/oz.

I don't think you'll find many newcomers heading here to set up grow ops knowing they've got to contend with prices more than half to two thirds less than current prices with the additional threat of 25 years or more in the can.

[Lemmy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Allow individuals to grow 5-6 plants for themselves. Anything more than that requires a licence. Anyone caught growing more than the personal amount without a licence should be subject to double the current penalty, or immediately deported, depending on the circumstances of the individual.

That number's got to be a lot larger than 5-6. If I start 50 plants in the spring, maybe 5 will survive to harvest. Am I going to prison 'cause I'm a shitty gardener?

No, there needn't be a limit on quantity, just on trafficking.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Lemmy Lemmy:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Allow individuals to grow 5-6 plants for themselves. Anything more than that requires a licence. Anyone caught growing more than the personal amount without a licence should be subject to double the current penalty, or immediately deported, depending on the circumstances of the individual.

That number's got to be a lot larger than 5-6. If I start 50 plants in the spring, maybe 5 will survive to harvest. Am I going to prison 'cause I'm a shitty gardener?

No, there needn't be a limit on quantity, just on trafficking.

If you grow them indoors, you needn't plant 50 at a time since you have a 365 day growing season with no chance of frost. Plus you have the option of forcing male plants to become females by adjusting the lighting period, as long as you identify them early enough.
Once you get the knack, having 5-6 female plants that are mature and/or nearing maturity at one time can yield a pretty nice harvest. And even at that, you can stagger the times of maturity so you don't have all your plants maturing within a week or two of each other, keeping your supply nice and fresh throughout the year.
I should have been clearer though and stated, "5-6 mature and/or near mature female plants at one time".

[PublicAnimalNo9]

$1:

WEST KELOWNA, B.C. - Prime Minister Stephen Harper called upon the legacy of Sir. John A. Macdonald during a comic foray into British Columbia's marijuana debate.

Harper says when the country's first prime minister was a member of Parliament for Victoria, B.C., in the 19th century, he focused on issues that mattered, like economic growth, not grow-ops, and about a national dream, not a pipe dream.

First off, invoking the memory of a notorious drunk when talking about pot is absolutely hilarious .
Secondly, it wasn't even an issue in Sir John A's time since pot was legal back then.
Harper's weak attempt at humour belies his even weaker position on the matter.
It's gonna remain illegal because HE doesn't like the stuff.

17% of Canadians smoke tobacco. 17% of Canadians have admitted to regular use of marijuana. One is legal, one isn't. Why? It can't be the "addiction" factor because A)tobacco is WAY more addictive, and some studies have suggested it's even more addictive than heroin, and B)marijuana is NOT addictive in the sense other drugs including tobacco and alcohol are, it doesn't stimulate the production of dopamine.
In other words, there's no proven link to physical addiction.

[Public_Domain]

[Curtman]

Pot retailers, growers in Washington gear up for legalization

$1:

Under Washington's new rules, there will be 334 pot stores in the state, including up to 15 close to the B.C. border. A gram will retail for roughly US $8 to $10, of which roughly 40 per cent will be tax.
...
In Washington, marijuana producers, processors and retailers will be able to apply for licences starting Nov. 16.

John Davis, who runs a medical marijuana dispensary in Seattle, currently sells product only to customers with a doctor’s note — everything from bud to chocolates to marijuana sodas.

"We have baked goods … we have sweets and savouries."

But with recreational sales on the way, Davis plans to use the store as a template to apply for a retail licence so he can sell to anyone.

"I don't think you're going to see something that is wildly successful the first year," he said. "There's going to be a lot of problems with it. We're going to have to come back and revisit it."
...
Marijuana producer Muraco Kyashna-tocha currently grows her bud for medical users, but she’s eyeing a licence to produce it under the new rules.

"I think what this means for the rest of the planet is they start to think that this is possible," she said.

"If two states in the U.S. have legalized cannabis, then you can't say it’s not possible in B.C. anymore."

Last November, voters in Colorado also passed an amendment making the limited sale, possession and growing of marijuana for recreational purposes legal for adults 21 and over.

The move could set the stage for more states to legalize marijuana. Alaska is scheduled to vote on the question next year, and a few other states plan similar votes in 2016.

Pot-friendly U.S. states won't see federal intervention
The U.S. government says it won't challenge Washington and Colorado. President Barack Obama himself has admitted to smoking pot when he was younger.

[Lemmy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

If you grow them indoors, you needn't plant 50 at a time since you have a 365 day growing season with no chance of frost. Plus you have the option of forcing male plants to become females by adjusting the lighting period, as long as you identify them early enough.
Once you get the knack, having 5-6 female plants that are mature and/or nearing maturity at one time can yield a pretty nice harvest. And even at that, you can stagger the times of maturity so you don't have all your plants maturing within a week or two of each other, keeping your supply nice and fresh throughout the year.
I should have been clearer though and stated, "5-6 mature and/or near mature female plants at one time".

"Needn't"'s got nothing to do with it. I'm not causing any greater harm to anyone if I have 60 plants instead of 6. There's no need for some arbitrary minimum. As long as I'm not trafficking, what does it matter? Let people grow whatever they want and crack down on anyone selling. That's much simpler and we wouldn't need an army of agents running around counting plants and handing out tickets. The more rules you make and the more complicated you make it, the more opportunity you make for keeping criminal gangs in business. K-I-S, S.

And I don't want plants in my house. I shouldn't have to go to jail because I don't want mold in my house.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Lemmy Lemmy:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

If you grow them indoors, you needn't plant 50 at a time since you have a 365 day growing season with no chance of frost. Plus you have the option of forcing male plants to become females by adjusting the lighting period, as long as you identify them early enough.
Once you get the knack, having 5-6 female plants that are mature and/or nearing maturity at one time can yield a pretty nice harvest. And even at that, you can stagger the times of maturity so you don't have all your plants maturing within a week or two of each other, keeping your supply nice and fresh throughout the year.
I should have been clearer though and stated, "5-6 mature and/or near mature female plants at one time".

"Needn't"'s got nothing to do with it. I'm not causing any greater harm to anyone if I have 60 plants instead of 6. There's no need for some arbitrary minimum. As long as I'm not trafficking, what does it matter? Let people grow whatever they want and crack down on anyone selling. That's much simpler and we wouldn't need an army of agents running around counting plants and handing out tickets. The more rules you make and the more complicated you make it, the more opportunity you make for keeping criminal gangs in business. K-I-S, S.

And I don't want plants in my house. I shouldn't have to go to jail because I don't want mold in my house.

You have no plants of any kind whatsoever in your house? My wife turned one of our bedrooms into a terrarium a few years back and we haven't had a mold issue yet.

The "arbitrary minimum" as you put it, is there to make it easier FOR the police.
Someone growing a handful of plants is most likely growing for themselves. Someone with 50-60 plants at or near maturity probably isn't.
The idea is to make it legal so people can grow their own, but not grow so many that they might be tempted to start selling some of it.
And if you are growing 50-60 plants outdoors, what's to stop some criminal element from hijacking your crop if they stumble upon it?

[Lemmy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

You have no plants of any kind whatsoever in your house? My wife turned one of our bedrooms into a terrarium a few years back and we haven't had a mold issue yet.

Some basil and thyme in the kitchen window.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The "arbitrary minimum" as you put it, is there to make it easier FOR the police.Someone growing a handful of plants is most likely growing for themselves. Someone with 50-60 plants at or near maturity probably isn't. The idea is to make it legal so people can grow their own, but not grow so many that they might be tempted to start selling some of it.

Why do we want to make things easier for cops? You're using the word "probably" and probably isn't a good term when it comes to law. And who cares about temptation? People are tempted to do all sorts of stupid things. I'm tempted to drive my Buick with the pedal all the way to the floor. I can hardly contain myself from grabbing women's asses all day long. Ultimately it's up to the citizen to quell temptation and follow the law.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

And if you are growing 50-60 plants outdoors, what's to stop some criminal element from hijacking your crop if they stumble upon it?

If everyone's allowed to grow, there wouldn't be any need for anyone to go sneaking about my back 40 looking for plants.

I get your points, but I disagree. I don't think there needs to be any regulation whatsoever on growing pot. Focus on dealers (if there are any left after legalization) and punish them harshly. Otherwise, pot should be treated no differently from tomatoes or cucumbers.

[PluggyRug]

Helicopter buzzing over our area all day Sunday, no doubt looking grow ops. What a waste of time and resources.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Helicopter buzzing over our area all day Sunday, no doubt looking grow ops. What a waste of time and resources.

They could at least make things interesting.