Proposed Federal Marijuana Legislation Unvailed

[tirebob]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3377577/marijuana-legislation-announcement-canada/

"The new legislation would establish a “strict legal framework” for the production, sale, distribution and possession of pot, and make it a specific criminal offence to sell cannabis to a minor. Adults over 18 would be allowed to possess up to 30 grams of dried cannabis or its equivalent in public, share up to 30 grams of dried cannabis with other adults and buy cannabis or cannabis oil from a provincially regulated retailer. They would also be permitted to grow up to four plants per resident for personal use, as well as make legal cannabis-containing products at home."

I think this strikes a good balance of convenience and reasonable use...

I hope this passes!

[mazdavirgin]

Won't someone please think of the children?!

https://img0.etsystatic.com/055/0/10537430/il_570xN.711973332_n0i3.jpg

[ercchry]

I would like to know what "equivalent" is going to look like (yield of concentrates can vary)

Would current medical regulations supersede for people in that program? (Currently you can carry around one month's worth and most prescriptions are at least 1g/day)

Also will they be looking at legalizing and regulating solvent based extracts? (ie. shatter)

Provincially regulated retail could become a fucking nightmare (look at how the old liquor nonsense use to be like)

What does this mean for current LP's? Are their evaluations about to drop off a cliff with the market opening up? Will there be protectionism measures put in place with this provincially regulated nonsense? How much red tape will there be for small business trying to break into this world? Will things be in place so retail can be open, fully licensed by day one of legalization?

So many questions!

Calling it now though, fun, good tasting pot products will be banned asap (just like flavoured tobacco... cause only children like things that taste good!)

[Kloubek]

It will pass. It has to. The liberals have spent so much time on it, and it was key in their platform. The NDP also supports legislation.


Originally posted by ercchry
Calling it now though, fun, good tasting pot products will be banned asap (just like flavoured tobacco... cause only children like things that taste good!)

Fair enough assessment. I can see a real problem with allowing people to make edibles in their home. The moment a child gets their hands on it and the media covers it, people will be screaming for change. (Even though it was really the parent's responsibility to keep it from happening, we're very much a hand-hold society)

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by ercchry

Provincially regulated retail could become a fucking nightmare (look at how the old liquor nonsense use to be like)


The problem is that everyone trumpeting taxes and getting rid of organized crime are wrong.

The tax revenue is way overstated. Just like black market tobacco sales, there will still be plenty of people buying illegally.

Its fucking ridiculous though that the legal age is 18, that is complete bullshit.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


The problem is that everyone trumpeting taxes and getting rid of organized crime are wrong.

The tax revenue is way overstated. Just like black market tobacco sales, there will still be plenty of people buying illegally.

Its fucking ridiculous though that the legal age is 18, that is complete bullshit.

It maybe overstated (maybe), but it's an entire new tax revenue source. There was zero taxes from it before, now there will be some... better than nothing.

I agree on the age, it should be older.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Huh? Why is that?

You should know this one...

Developing brain=classic BC potheads

[pheoxs]

four plants per resident for personal use

I originally thought it was rumored to be 4 plants per residence, now its per resident?

Like if we have a house of 4 we can grow 16 plants?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by pheoxs


I originally thought it was rumored to be 4 plants per residence, now its per resident?

Like if we have a house of 4 we can grow 16 plants?

4 people of legal age, I assume.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by ercchry


You should know this one...

Developing brain=classic BC potheads

Yep. While I am completely against legalization, at least if they are going to do it they should do it inline with the nedical communities recommendations.

Of course, alcohol should be too, but I digress.

Liberals are clearly gunning for the youth vote for this.

[ZenOps]

Jeebus, 30 grams at the strength they grow nowadays is more than I was thinking. That could do a block party.

So I might as well ask here on Beyond now... Wheres the best place to get hydroponics?

[pheoxs]

Just checked some other articles and they all say per residence. Looks like typo in the article in this thread.


Originally posted by ZenOps
Jeebus, 30 grams at the strength they grow nowadays is more than I was thinking. That could do a block party.

I don't see why thats a problem. I can go buy a texas mickey of booze, doesn't mean I have to drink it all in one sitting.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by pheoxs
Just checked some other articles and they all say per residence. Looks like typo in the article in this thread.



I don't see why thats a problem. I can go buy a texas mickey of booze, doesn't mean I have to drink it all in one sitting.

Not to mention if you want to create topicals/edibles/concentrates/etc you want to do that in bulk, cause of the time commitment and loss associated with it

[J-hop]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Won't someone please think of the children?!

https://img0.etsystatic.com/055/0/10537430/il_570xN.711973332_n0i3.jpg

I'll stick to the blood of Christ thank you very much :rofl:

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by J-hop


I'll stick to the blood of Christ thank you very much :rofl:

It starts out all nice and divine but it will lead you down a dark path. Once you're hooked on the body there's no turning back!

WOrYN2rb3OI

[A790]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
The problem is that everyone trumpeting taxes and getting rid of organized crime are wrong.

The tax revenue is way overstated. Just like black market tobacco sales, there will still be plenty of people buying illegally.
Do tell.

[chkolny541]

Originally posted by ercchry


What does this mean for current LP's? Are their evaluations about to drop off a cliff with the market opening up? Will there be protectionism measures put in place with this provincially regulated nonsense? How much red tape will there be for small business trying to break into this world? Will things be in place so retail can be open, fully licensed by day one of legalization?

So many questions!


I'm also very curious about how LP's are going to be incorporated in this new deal. I personally was under the assumption that there will be additional taxs on the regular variety vs only 5% gst on the medical grade mj. So ultimately if you qualify for medical mj it would still be your preferred choice due to additional taxes? I'm not positive but it would make more sense.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Yep. While I am completely against legalization, at least if they are going to do it they should do it inline with the nedical communities recommendations.

Of course, alcohol should be too, but I digress.



I'm completely against others telling others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[BensonTT]

I dont smoke weed but am gonna grow a plant for fun.. lol

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by A790

Do tell.

What do you mean "do tell"? Even the gov has been quoted in recent news articles, suggesting that the most revenue it will bring in is $1bil once everything is rolling. And again, if you think that black market tobacco isn't a problem still, you're smoking something harder than weed.

At that $1bil in tax revenue, we're talking 0.3% of GDP. And that doesn't factor in the costs associated with all the regulations, enforcement, and other ancillary expenses of doing this. So yea, the net revenue is at best meaningless, at worst false. But I get it that its hard for you pot heads to admit that you just want to get high and just trumpet these other ideas as "reasoning" behind why you support it.


Originally posted by Seth1968
I'm completely against others telling others what they can and can not do with their own bodies.

I'm completely against others forcing me (by threat of violence) to pay for them in any capacity, from health care to policing. So, looks like we are at a stalemate.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

I'm completely against others forcing me (by threat of violence) to pay for them in any capacity, from health care to policing. So, looks like we are at a stalemate.

People do all sorts of shit to their bodies, but it most definitely shouldn't be a crime. What should be a crime, is forcing others to comply with personal dogma.

With that said, I totally agree that no one should be forced to pay for another. It's yet another violation of human rights.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

And that doesn't factor in the costs associated with all the regulations, enforcement, and other ancillary expenses of doing this.

*snip*


I'm completely against others forcing me (by threat of violence) to pay for them in any capacity, from health care to policing. So, looks like we are at a stalemate.

Are you under the impression that the current regulation and enforcement costs of the current position of marijuana is zero?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Are you under the impression that the current regulation and enforcement costs of the current position of marijuana is zero?

Straw man.

Are you under the impression it will make a difference in costs?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Straw man.

Are you under the impression it will make a difference in costs?

Reduced costs associated with incarceration, reduced costs associated with enforcement, more jobs, increased sales/sin tax revenue, shift of people from illegal businesses to legitimate ones, increase in industry relating to production etc.

It's an all-costs, no revenue game right now. You can still see an increase in costs significantly in one area and come out ahead if you tap into the revenue streams available and reduce unnecessary costs in others. Most of the whining about enforcement costs in the U.S. comes from neighboring states of legal-weed ones (like Nebraska trying to get Colorado to pay for their highway patrol because of all the 'pot runners').

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Reduced costs associated with incarceration, reduced costs associated with enforcement, more jobs, increased sales/sin tax revenue, shift of people from illegal businesses to legitimate ones, increase in industry relating to production etc.

It's an all-costs, no revenue game right now. You can still see an increase in costs significantly in one area and come out ahead if you tap into the revenue streams available and reduce unnecessary costs in others. Most of the whining about enforcement costs in the U.S. comes from neighboring states of legal-weed ones (like Nebraska trying to get Colorado to pay for their highway patrol because of all the 'pot runners').

lol, you're wasting your breath with this one at this point. Try the ignore button.... :rofl:

[pheoxs]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


The problem is that everyone trumpeting taxes and getting rid of organized crime are wrong.

The tax revenue is way overstated. Just like black market tobacco sales, there will still be plenty of people buying illegally.

Its fucking ridiculous though that the legal age is 18, that is complete bullshit.

Revenue from Tobacco sales taxes is over 8 billion $ per year. Is it hard to think that if weed grows to take even 1/8th (heh) of that size that it couldn't add 1 billion in tax revenue?

Source:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/totaltax.pdf

[mazdavirgin]

I know that myself and all my friends go down to the local moonshiners to buy our booze since it's way cheaper than hitting up the government liquor store! :nut:

No clue how anyone could argue that this won't kill the illegal market. I mean we have ample precedent of this exact scenario occurring before and after prohibition. Who the hell is buying black market smokes and who is growing all this black market tobacco? Sure there's a few odd reservations who sell smokes but no one is really buying much of that shit compared to just buying from the corner store.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Reduced costs associated with incarceration, reduced costs associated with enforcement

There is little proof of this, as weed is already not enforced like you suggest, and criminal elements will continue to sell it regardless (black market tobacco).

Every single thing you've suggested goes to show that you've read the talking points but haven't actually looked into any real numbers.


Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


lol, you're wasting your breath with this one at this point. Try the ignore button.... :rofl:

Yep, bringing up valid points that contradict the pot heads is indeed wasting my breath. :rolleyes:

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by pheoxs


Revenue from Tobacco sales taxes is over 8 billion $ per year. Is it hard to think that if weed grows to take even 1/8th (heh) of that size that it couldn't add 1 billion in tax revenue?

Source:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/totaltax.pdf


Originally posted by HiTempguy1


What do you mean "do tell"? Even the gov has been quoted in recent news articles, suggesting that the most revenue it will bring in is $1bil once everything is rolling.

Congrats on reading the thread :thumbsup: That's 0.3% of GDP at most.

[pheoxs]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1




Congrats on reading the thread :thumbsup: That's 0.3% of GDP at most.

And in your quote you are stating the tax revenue is overstated, which is where I added a different basis for guesstimating revenue.

[bjstare]

Black market tobacco :rofl:

Anyone who loves searching for numbers interested in finding what percentage of cigarettes smoked in Canada are "black market"? (And no, I haven't read the thread, maybe it's in here already).

[kertejud2]

$8B in tax revenue despite the crippling black market tobacco trade.

Barely a dent in the GDP.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
I know that myself and all my friends go down to the local moonshiners to buy our booze since it's way cheaper than hitting up the government liquor store! :nut:

No clue how anyone could argue that this won't kill the illegal market. I mean we have ample precedent of this exact scenario occurring before and after prohibition. Who the hell is buying black market smokes and who is growing all this black market tobacco? Sure there's a few odd reservations who sell smokes but no one is really buying much of that shit compared to just buying from the corner store.

the tobacco thing isnt as prevalent out west, but out east.... its an interesting topic... im not too sure if i'd call it black market in the traditional sense... although in the industry there is some guys.... okay, most are breaking some laws at some point or another. but this industry exists because of the reserve system. technically speaking, they can grow, manufacture and sell whatever the hell they want (to an extent) on their own land... in ontario you can cruise through a reserve, they actually embarrass the white man to come spend his dollars vs here... and you can buy off brand "native smokes" EVERYWHERE... bag of smokes (equivalent to a carton) is about half price vs the gas station down the road. problem is that most fo them dont grow their own and actually smuggle it into the country from the states, and of course they have a network in place to ship this stuff all over the country, being sold by no status members, white people, whatever off reserve.

the reserve up near my family cottage also dabbles in the growing of the reefer.. so this should get very interesting

as for revenue.... well Tweed alone already has a market cap of $1.6B :nut:

[A790]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
But I get it that its hard for you pot heads to admit that you just want to get high and just trumpet these other ideas as "reasoning" behind why you support it.
:rofl:

Is that supposed to be some kind of insult or something? Bitch please. I smoke pot most days of the week. No secrets here. Hell, you sound like you could use some yourself- come by and smoke one with me. :)

[g-m]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Yep. While I am completely against legalization, at least if they are going to do it they should do it inline with the nedical communities recommendations.

Of course, alcohol should be too, but I digress.

Liberals are clearly gunning for the youth vote for this. I'm starting to understand what I think the rest of Beyond figured out about you a while ago

[J-hop]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
I know that myself and all my friends go down to the local moonshiners to buy our booze since it's way cheaper than hitting up the government liquor store! :nut:

No clue how anyone could argue that this won't kill the illegal market. I mean we have ample precedent of this exact scenario occurring before and after prohibition. Who the hell is buying black market smokes and who is growing all this black market tobacco? Sure there's a few odd reservations who sell smokes but no one is really buying much of that shit compared to just buying from the corner store.

Let me know the next time you are hitting up the shiner, if you don't mind I'd like to carpool.

FFS it is all about net effect. If people think legalizing pot will have a net negative effect they're smoking crack. Every argument against legalizing pot is a straw man........

[A790]

Originally posted by J-hop


Let me know the next time you are hitting up the shiner, if you don't mind I'd like to carpool.

FFS it is all about net effect. If people think legalizing pot will have a net negative effect they're smoking crack. Every argument against legalizing pot is a straw man........
You're wrong. - HiStrungGuy

[FraserB]

Just make sure you don't drive high.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-impaired-driving-changes-1.4069889

People got their legal weed, but they also got some of the strictest impaired driving laws in the world to go along with it.

[A790]

Originally posted by FraserB
Just make sure you don't drive high.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-impaired-driving-changes-1.4069889

People got their legal weed, but they also got some of the strictest impaired driving laws in the world to go along with it.
Good. Driving high is for chumps.

[ExtraSlow]

Stricter impaired driving laws with specific provisions for driving high. This sounds good to me! :thumbsup:

I haven't looked at any of the other parts of the new laws, I assume they'll be tweaked and debated at length over the coming months.

[Sonic]

I'm just worried about being falsely accused of being stoned while driving....:nut:

[baygirl]

Well this explains why we had new forms at work this week covering coming to work impaired...

[OTown]

Originally posted by J-hop
FFS it is all about net effect. If people think legalizing pot will have a net negative effect they're smoking crack. Every argument against legalizing pot is a straw man........
Legalization is in no way a silver bullet.

Its not like everyone would make it seem - there WILL be negative effects. Lets not forget that. You don't have to venture too far to find places like Colorado have had negative effects as well.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/unpacking-pots-impact-in-colorado/

...increases in these incidents were significant. Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by 154 percent between 2006 and 2014; Colorado emergency room hospital visits that were “likely related” to marijuana increased by 77 percent from 2011 to 2014; and drug-related suspensions/expulsions increased 40 percent from school years 2008/2009 to 2013/2014, according to a September 2015 report by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Traffic Area, a collaboration of federal, state and local drug enforcement agencies.

So yes, even though some tax money will come in, it will undoubtedly have some costs relating to health care and other services. This isnt some zero-loss win-win proposal.

Furthermore, although the black market will be affected, I don't believe it will be eradicated. Here you have the government controlling and regulating weed, selling it at more expensive prices and taxed. Why wouldn't people just keep getting their usual cheap potent stuff from their dealer delivered to their door?

I do support these updated impaired driving laws. Looks like those changes have been needed for some time. But as some others have said - the legal age should be at least 21 if not higher if we listen to the medical professionals.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by OTown
Furthermore, although the black market will be affected, I don't believe it will be eradicated. Here you have the government controlling and regulating weed, selling it at more expensive prices and taxed. Why wouldn't people just keep getting their usual cheap potent stuff from their dealer delivered to their door?

Maybe the dealer's supplier decided to go legit so you aren't getting the reliable cheap potent stuff anymore.

Maybe the dealer didn't deliver to your door and there are more convenient stores to pick it up.

Maybe the stuff their dealer had wasn't all that potent or at least consistent because he was a shitty dealer with a shitty supplier and he was just the only dealer you knew.

Maybe he's just not that reliable because he's just flaky or he has a lot of clients and can't keep up with them all and you want some weed now.

Maybe the legalization will open up much cheaper and efficient methods of production and distribution (and more producers so increased supply) that lowers those costs so even with taxes the price stays competitive.

Or maybe people don't like breaking the law and a good portion of them would pay a bit more because that's how they're wired and that's what we've seen everywhere else. Like why people still bought speakers at stores even though some guy in a white van was selling them for much cheaper in the parking lot, or how some people pay for HBO when you can just torrent Game of Thrones and Westworld for free!



I guess what I'm saying is that using the 'there will still be some problems so therefore we shouldn't do it at all' argument for something that is currently an all-loss, zero-win game is just silly.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by OTown

Legalization is in no way a silver bullet.

Its not like everyone would make it seem - there WILL be negative effects. Lets not forget that. You don't have to venture too far to find places like Colorado have had negative effects as well.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/unpacking-pots-impact-in-colorado/


So yes, even though some tax money will come in, it will undoubtedly have some costs relating to health care and other services. This isnt some zero-loss win-win proposal.

Furthermore, although the black market will be affected, I don't believe it will be eradicated. Here you have the government controlling and regulating weed, selling it at more expensive prices and taxed. Why wouldn't people just keep getting their usual cheap potent stuff from their dealer delivered to their door?

I do support these updated impaired driving laws. Looks like those changes have been needed for some time. But as some others have said - the legal age should be at least 21 if not higher if we listen to the medical professionals.

If you read closely I think those results are a bit screwy. First they don't look at the change in marijuana only deaths they combine all of the impaired drivers together making it impossible to tell if pot was the underlying factor. If someone is at a party drinking their face off and take a few drags from a joint and are involved in an accident they would be lumped in even though alcohol may have been the primary factor.

Second they even state that the cutoff for a positive was cut in half in 2014. Yet they don't appear to have made an effort to correct the stats for this cutoff change.

Third they don't make any correlations between levels in system and impairment.

Those results may have some truth to them but it doesn't look like much care was spent putting them together based on my cursory look at them. I would scrutinize those results much more heavily. Before drawing any conclusions.

[ercchry]

It's going to be like booze, marketing and branding will trump untested street drugs along with "fun" things that dealers will not bother producing

Also... has anyone ever had a dealer actually willing to deliver to your door?! NEVER! Wtf... Otown, you straight edged guy, you... stop talking about shit you have no experience with

[A790]

Originally posted by ercchry
Also... has anyone ever had a dealer actually willing to deliver to your door?! NEVER! Wtf... Otown, you straight edged guy, you... stop talking about shit you have no experience with
My old dealer used to come by all the time. He was good shit.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by OTown
Legalization is in no way a silver bullet.

Its not like everyone would make it seem - there WILL be negative effects. Lets not forget that. You don't have to venture too far to find places like Colorado have had negative effects as well.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/unpacking-pots-impact-in-colorado/
Read the study in the link. From 2006 to 2014 car-related fatalities DROPPED from 535 to 488. What went up significantly is "Fatalities with operators testing positive for Marijuana." There are two MAJOR problems though. First, the screening process shows that between 2009 and 2014, 3X more people were tested for marijuana! Probably even less in 2006. Second problem is the chart a few pages lower that shows that 67% of drivers in accidents who tested positive for marijuana were also either drunk or on other drugs!

Grade 7 science taught me a study is invalid without just one "manipulated variable."

[blairtruck]

Originally posted by A790

My old dealer used to come by all the time. He was good shit. yep my dealer always delivered. now my dealer is the Canada post mailman.

[revelations]

Originally posted by FraserB
Just make sure you don't drive high.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-impaired-driving-changes-1.4069889

People got their legal weed, but they also got some of the strictest impaired driving laws in the world to go along with it.

I was not aware that drunk driving laws are changing as well. Probably for the best as they were pretty outdated.

Now, the police can (like in many European countries) can just simply stick a breathalyzer in your mouth and say "blow".

[J-hop]

Originally posted by revelations


I was not aware that drunk driving laws are changing as well. Probably for the best as they were pretty outdated.

Now, the police can (like in many European countries) can just simply stick a breathalyzer in your mouth and say "blow".

Can't wait for the PJW (personal "justice" warriors). Err meh gerrd you are violating my rights by forcing me to prove I'm sober on public roadways where the public is affected by my actions.

[ZenOps]

This is why we need drone deliveries. Two grams dropped right on your lap.

[ExtraSlow]

Hey, is there anyone on beyond who previously didn't use the various MJ products that is now planning to? From what I can see, this basically just changes the delivery model for the existing users.

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Hey, is there anyone on beyond who previously didn't use the various MJ products that is now planning to? From what I can see, this basically just changes the delivery model for the existing users.

Yah I don't know anyone who doesn't use it that plans to start using it.


Did notice that ENFORM is lobbying to be able to ban its use for people who work in safety sensitive positions.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Hey, is there anyone on beyond who previously didn't use the various MJ products that is now planning to? From what I can see, this basically just changes the delivery model for the existing users.

I personally plan to start. But I will be replacing alcohol with MJ products (likely edibles) so no real net change. Sick of drinking high amounts of calories, assaulting my stomach and making my liver and bladder work overtime. No I'm not a heavy drinker, I enjoy a beer or two per week but alcohol is such a shitty drug. I can personally only see positive outcomes from switching.

[blairtruck]

Originally posted by lasimmon


Yah I don't know anyone who doesn't use it that plans to start using it.


Did notice that ENFORM is lobbying to be able to ban its use for people who work in safety sensitive positions.
never had a random. but passed every scheduled test 4/4.

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by blairtruck

never had a random. but passed every scheduled test 4/4.

Mostly cause randoms don't hold up in court.

I bet that will change with MJ becoming legal.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by lasimmon

Did notice that ENFORM is lobbying to be able to ban its use for people who work in safety sensitive positions.

Are they lobbying to ban liquor as well?

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Are they lobbying to ban liquor as well?

I'm sure they would if it wasn't already.

[revelations]

Originally posted by J-hop


Can't wait for the PJW (personal "justice" warriors). Err meh gerrd you are violating my rights by forcing me to prove I'm sober on public roadways where the public is affected by my actions.

The cops in Canada are going to be dealing with a lot of people (like this) who are uninformed about this law.

[dirtsniffer]

They are actually trying to change the law that cops can demand a breath sample with no suspicion. basically everyone who gets pulled into a checkstop will be forced to blow. sounds pretty fucking unreasonable to me.

oh, you guys are already talking about this.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by revelations


The cops in Canada are going to be dealing with a lot of people (like this) who are uninformed about this law.

The only real change I see is everyone has to blow. Big deal.

[Gman.45]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet regarding FraserB's post on the new DUI laws - what about the piles of Canadians taking opioid based painkillers. I think the last stats I saw showed that there is probably more of those than there is weed users. Based on the numbers of prescriptions written in 2015, I've seen data from the college of physicians and Health Canada that says 1 in every 5 Canadians between 18 and 75 has taken opioids for at least some period of time. Even if that's high, what can't be debated is the numbers of pills/patches/etc, for the last year there is data for, 2015 IIRC, there was over 25 million pain med prescriptions written. Since 2012 the numbers have gone up 18 to 20% every year like clockwork.

Will these people now "blow over" while out driving? There have been cases before the courts about how pain management use of opoids doesn't produce an "impaired" effect when properly taken, but I don't buy that, and IMO neither will the courts.

I do know that when the UK brought in very similar laws and tools for L/E, 6 out of every 10 drivers in the opening weeks of the law being on the books were getting popped for an impaired for drugs, compared to just 5% that were getting alcohol impaired results. 60%. You can google it. We have even more opioids prescribed here than in the UK.

[blairtruck]

there should be a standard roadside test that checks for alertness and reflex and such as there always was in the past.
what about all those old as fuck dinosaurs on the road with blinker on for five blocks with the reflexes of a rock. wont someone think of the children.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by blairtruck
there should be a standard roadside test that checks for alertness and reflex and such as there always was in the past.
what about all those old as fuck dinosaurs on the road with blinker on for five blocks with the reflexes of a rock. wont someone think of the children.

There is, and several of our local CPS members have been specially trained... which has resulted in zero convictions to date.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Gman.45
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet regarding FraserB's post on the new DUI laws - what about the piles of Canadians taking opioid based painkillers. I think the last stats I saw showed that there is probably more of those than there is weed users. Based on the numbers of prescriptions written in 2015, I've seen data from the college of physicians and Health Canada that says 1 in every 5 Canadians between 18 and 75 has taken opioids for at least some period of time. Even if that's high, what can't be debated is the numbers of pills/patches/etc, for the last year there is data for, 2015 IIRC, there was over 25 million pain med prescriptions written. Since 2012 the numbers have gone up 18 to 20% every year like clockwork.

Will these people now "blow over" while out driving? There have been cases before the courts about how pain management use of opoids doesn't produce an "impaired" effect when properly taken, but I don't buy that, and IMO neither will the courts.

I do know that when the UK brought in very similar laws and tools for L/E, 6 out of every 10 drivers in the opening weeks of the law being on the books were getting popped for an impaired for drugs, compared to just 5% that were getting alcohol impaired results. 60%. You can google it. We have even more opioids prescribed here than in the UK.

From my very limited understanding, the roadside tongue scrape they use in the UK right now can discern between drugs and a positive on the roadside test sends you for a more detailed exam.

In my mind, impaired is impaired. There is no difference at all between someone impaired due to recreational use and someone who is impaired due to medical need. Both people should be charged.

[A790]

Originally posted by FraserB
In my mind, impaired is impaired. There is no difference at all between someone impaired due to recreational use and someone who is impaired due to medical need. Both people should be charged.
I agree: you should not get behind the wheel of a vehicle if you are unable to properly operate it. Being inebriated prevents you from doing that safely.

[ercchry]

I still think we need more effort put into the legal limits...

dw1HavgoK9E

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


There is, and several of our local CPS members have been specially trained... which has resulted in zero convictions to date.

Yea I think the problem is the PJW types and the backlash it would cause if the CPS ever made a conviction.

I can just see the news article now. " my grandpa is 90 years old and needs to get life saving medication at the pharmacy regularly. Taking his right to drive away is taking his right to live away"

[Gman.45]

I agree FraserB, but there WILL be a challenge on this if the law is passed - 2 pharmacies I dealt with for my mother ( she had stage 3/4 lymphoma and was not ambulatory) refuse to deliver narcotics for security reasons, they had to be picked up at the pharmacy. Also, the large majority of opioids doctors prefer to prescribe are "long acting" over "instant release" due to there being less chance of abuse/etc. The long acting are always in the bloodstream, it's not like a prescribed user can just "wait a few hours" and then be ok to drive when taking a dose every 12 hours. So, combined with pharmacies not delivering, and the medication being constantly in the blood stream, what option does this give the hundreds of thousands if not millions prescribed these drugs? Was not part of the reason for them even being prescribed the improvement of life's functions?

In effect this law will make millions of Canadians ineligible to drive, unless very specific levels of impairment are set. Should be interesting, if nothing else maybe it'll be more ammunition to get people off of long term opioid treatments.

[A790]

Originally posted by J-hop
I can just see the news article now. " my grandpa is 90 years old and needs to get life saving medication at the pharmacy regularly. Taking his right to drive away is taking his right to live away"
Why doesn't Grandpa have his medication mailed to him like every other MM patient? ;)

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Gman.45
I agree FraserB, but there WILL be a challenge on this if the law is passed - 2 pharmacies I dealt with for my mother ( she had stage 3/4 lymphoma and was not ambulatory) refuse to deliver narcotics for security reasons, they had to be picked up at the pharmacy. Also, the large majority of opioids doctors prefer to prescribe are "long acting" over "instant release" due to there being less chance of abuse/etc. The long acting are always in the bloodstream, it's not like a prescribed user can just "wait a few hours" and then be ok to drive when taking a dose every 12 hours. So, combined with pharmacies not delivering, and the medication being constantly in the blood stream, what option does this give the hundreds of thousands if not millions prescribed these drugs? Was not part of the reason for them even being prescribed the improvement of life's functions?

In effect this law will make millions of Canadians ineligible to drive, unless very specific levels of impairment are set. Should be interesting, if nothing else maybe it'll be more ammunition to get people off of long term opioid treatments.

But those same medications carry the warning not to operate heavy machinery while you're taking them, which means cars. Not to mention the fact that there is no right to drive in Canada. I find it very, very hard to believe that the ONLY way for someone to get medication is for them to physically drive to the pharmacy themselves and pick them up.

If the medication you are taking impairs you, you should not be behind the wheel. Full stop. You are not just making the choice for yourself, you are making it for everyone else on the road around you.

[Gman.45]

Actually the warning on the meds and from the pharmacy don't prohibit driving, the warning states "care should be taken", and that "alcohol shouldn't be mixed'. As I said before, there have been court cases about this already, and that was the defense used, and IIRC it was successful in defending against impaired driving charges. I'll find the link. It doesn't affect me personally any longer as my mother is beyond such worries now, but again, there are millions of people given pain meds in order to increase their ability to function - that's the party line - and claim that when pain drugs are FOR pain and not getting high, there is little impairment. All I'm saying is that there is going to be a huge number that get popped by the roadside tests, and that there will be a huge backlash from those taking prescribed drugs which have been deemed "safe", and for the purpose of alleviating pain so people can DO things like drive.

I've read pamphlets from the pharmacy identical to this one from the UK, you'll see what I'm getting at when you read it. This is the policy patients are told here too- I've seen here in Canada from Rexall a virtually identical pamphlet as well. Again, there is absolutely NO prohibition order given from the pharmacy, doctors, or drug companies vis a vis operating vehicles, at least that I can find. Warning yes, but they have that on Tylenol and NSAIDS too.

http://www.palliativedrugs.com/download/141118_3002Opioids%20and%20driving_v3_102014.pdf

I do agree, if there is any impairment, it should be a no brainer, all I'm saying is that there are millions of regular opioid users who have been on them long term, and there hasn't been a "crisis of vehicle accidents due to opioid use", not that I've ever heard or read about. You would think this would be a gong they would be banging if there was such data, which makes it pretty obvious there isn't. These people will be picked off by the road side, and they will bitch that they aren't impaired, and may even be right. Without a stated level as to what is classified as impaired in long term opioid patients, it's going to be trouble in the courts.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Gman.45
all I'm saying is that there are millions of regular opioid users who have been on them long term, and there hasn't been a "crisis of vehicle accidents due to opioid use", not that I've ever heard or read about.
I bet you if they started testing for opioids, there suddenly would be. You'd be reading bullshit articles with quotes from dumbass police chiefs stating how "opioids are a contributing factor in XX% of collisions." That would be followed by a massive "awareness campaign" with some stupid slogan similar to "speed kills" all in an attempt to solve a problem which either doesn't statistically exist, or kills very few people.

Case and point is that Colorado marijuana article a couple pages back where the lack of having tested for marijuana 10 years ago kills any ability to make conclusions, and yet they still attempt to.

[Seth1968]

We need self driving vehicles that have liquor, pot, and opiate dispensers built right in.

As long as you can remember where you want to go, you're good:)

[hampstor]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
They are actually trying to change the law that cops can demand a breath sample with no suspicion. basically everyone who gets pulled into a checkstop will be forced to blow. sounds pretty fucking unreasonable to me.

oh, you guys are already talking about this.

Actually it's not just checkstops. It's any time they lawfully pull you over they can test you.



Under the current law, police officers must suspect a driver has alcohol in his or her body before they administer any roadside testing. Under the proposed legislation, police officers who have an approved screening device on hand would be able to test any driver they lawfully stop, even if the officer does not suspect the driver has alcohol in his or her body.

[Sugarphreak]

....

[J-hop]

Anyone else getting super annoyed at the moronic news stories that keep getting run lately. "10-30% of pregnant women in Canada smoke pot".

[gretz]

Originally posted by J-hop
Anyone else getting super annoyed at the moronic news stories that keep getting run lately. "10-30% of pregnant women in Canada smoke pot".

I've never laughed as hard as the "fatal vision" simulation goggles... Holy fuck, if I use the pots I will be blind...

[ZenOps]

I want to try one of those Unicorns.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[max_boost]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I think there is something to those stats though

All the girls I knew from school that smoke pot regularly and then had kids (which is most of them, when you are an unemployed bum it isn’t like there is a lot else to do) smoked during the pregnancy and defended it by saying it was medical or some bull shit. They also don’t seem to care much that they hot box their car when they are smoking and driving with kids in it either. lol you have a lot of loser friends

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I think there is something to those stats though

All the girls I knew from school that smoke pot regularly and then had kids (which is most of them, when you are an unemployed bum it isn’t like there is a lot else to do) smoked during the pregnancy and defended it by saying it was medical or some bull shit. They also don’t seem to care much that they hot box their car when they are smoking and driving with kids in it either.

Yea maybe but the way the media is portraying the stats is (as usual) misleading.

Again we are fighting centuries of ignorance. Not even 100 years ago parents were encouraging each other to apply whisky to the gums of teething infants...

Even today some pregnant women believe it is ok to have one beer or one glass of wine during certain stages of pregnancy even though the jury is still out on whether small amounts of alcohol can affect the baby.

At the end of the day the media is reacting similar to prohibition time for alcohol. This only breeds idiocy....

[J-hop]

Originally posted by max_boost
lol you have a lot of loser friends

No kidding. Sugarphreak always seems to have stories about skids that ruined their life.

Remember Han's words, who you choose to be around you lets you know who you are.


Just bugging you, I know you've said you've cleaned up your list of friends

[Tik-Tok]

Here's a run down of Alberta's plan.

https://www.alberta.ca/cannabis-legalization.aspx

Honestly disappointed that there's no proposition of banning smoking it, for health reasons. I've got no problem with marijuana use at all, but it's a fairly well known fact that inhaling anything into your lungs is a bad idea. At least with oil or vaporizers you don't have the same negative health effects.

[Seth1968]

Here's a run down of Alberta's plan.

https://www.alberta.ca/cannabis-legalization.aspx

Honestly disappointed that there's no proposition of banning smoking it, for health reasons. I've got no problem with marijuana use at all, but it's a fairly well known fact that inhaling anything into your lungs is a bad idea. At least with oil or vaporizers you don't have the same negative health effects.

If there were a ban on everything people do that negatively affects health, then we all might as well lie down and die.

Bottom line: Criminalizing an individual for what they wish to do with their body, is a violation of human rights and freedom.

[Tik-Tok]

If there were a ban on everything people do that negatively affects health, then we all might as well lie down and die.


I'm obviously not suggesting that, however the government has spent decades (and god knows how much money) specifically curbing cigarette legality for health reasons, but now they're saying it's cool to smoke a joint (vs vaporizing or oil)? Just makes no sense to me. Why not nip it in the bud (har har) to begin with?

[dj_patm]

One thing to keep in mind is you don't smoke marijuana like regular smokes.

No one smokes "a pack a day" of joints. You'd probably just fall asleep.

Even the most heavy users will probably smoke a couple joints a day. Most people will smoke a lot less than that. Not nearly as bad as regular smoking.

[Seth1968]

Whether or not said product is considered a health risk or not, is irrelevant to my point.

[01RedDX]

.

[Tik-Tok]

Whether or not said product is considered a health risk or not, is irrelevant to my point.

You're seeing this as a "right to do whatever I fucking want" problem, I'm seeing it as a "how many years before someone uses the negative health effects of smoking to get it banned again" problem.

[sabad66]

Very surprised at how lax the Alberta proposed rules are... thought it would be similar to Ontario where it’s basically private residences only. One thing the ndp is on track to get right in my opinion

From a Calgary herald article:
“When recreational cannabis is legalized July 1, smoking or vaping the drug will be banned anywhere in Alberta where tobacco use is already prohibited.

Toking will also be barred in cars, around hospitals, on school grounds and close to areas frequented by children, such as playgrounds, daycares, sports fields, public pools and zoos.

But Albertans will be free to spark up a joint anywhere else, from sidewalks to provincial parks.”

[ZenOps]

l2CuUrbrtA0

[NissanFanBoy]

Anyone else lol when they read that kids under 18 caught will be have their parents notified and ticketed?! :rofl:

[OTown]

If there were a ban on everything people do that negatively affects health, then we all might as well lie down and die.

Bottom line: Criminalizing an individual for what they wish to do with their body, is a violation of human rights and freedom.

Who's footing the ultimate bill? It's going to be an increase and strain on the already strained health care system. Who's going to pay for it? You make it seem like money grows on trees and is not a societal concern.

TikTok has a point. We've been trying to curb smoking for decades with finally something to show for it, only to simply open a new door to it and welcome it along. Seems pretty contradictory

[J-hop]

Who's footing the ultimate bill? It's going to be an increase and strain on the already strained health care system. Who's going to pay for it? You make it seem like money grows on trees and is not a societal concern.

TikTok has a point. We've been trying to curb smoking for decades with finally something to show for it, only to simply open a new door to it and welcome it along. Seems pretty contradictory

First I'm fairly certain every peer reviewed research paper has shown tobacco smoking and marijuana smoking are nothing alike and marijuana smoking does not show the same unquestionable casual relationship with cancer.

Second, the legalization/accepted use of marijuana in the global sense is nothing new. I don't believe there is any evidence that has shown a population's health has decreased and health care costs have increased after legalization.

I'd be happy to change my view on this if you can provide evidence to contradict what I've said.

The conversation, no matter what side you're on has to revolve around facts and data not feelings or guesses people have about how it will pan out.

[Disoblige]

The bigger question is what is the companies that we work for going to do?

[Seth1968]

Who's footing the ultimate bill? It's going to be an increase and strain on the already strained health care system. Who's going to pay for it?

You're assuming that marijuana decriminalization will result in a negative financial outcome.

Aside from that, people do all sorts of shit that is detrimental to their health and our pocket books. That just leads to another debate in which one could ask, "Why are people forced to pay for another"?