Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 5913
Reputation: 217.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:12 am    Post subject: they may be legalising it but how should it be restricted ? Reply with quote

some personal opinion here , everyone has come to accept the coming reality that the liberals plan to bring forward legislation this spring in time for april's 420 celebrations that will legalise so called " recreational " use of marijuana , it is already legal in Canada for most " medical " uses

but its a mystery as to what that legislation will look like and what if any restrictions will they attempt to bring forward , an age limit of between 18-21 has already been mentioned and discussed in many articles and suggested my health associations . as well as concerns about a likely increase in drug impaired driving , but many other concerns or possible ways to control and restrict marijuana usage have not been discussed . and considering the fact "legal " products like alcohol and tobacco are heavily restricted in Canada I figured its time to open up the discussion a little more


idea # 1 "licensing system " for marijuana dispensaries , which would require a dispensary to obtain some sort of federal or provincial license in order to sell marijuana products , similar to how a bar or restaurant needs a "liquor license " . this license would have to be renewed on some sort of semi yearly basis in order to make sure the operator was following the rules

idea # 2 limit on the number of Licenses per city or geographical area , a limit could be used to control the number of marijuana dispensaries in a certain city ,as many have commented there is way too many in Toronto and they were popping up everywhere .
although I'm unsure if this is needed as naturally businesses tend to sort this out themselves and only the stronger stores are likely to survive long term anyways

idea # 3 to obtain a license to sell marijuana an operator/owner / staff would need to pass a criminal background check . ( not saying a simple marijuana possession or even trafficking would be grounds for rejection ) but rather more serious offenses like sexual assaults , weapons and more severe drug trafficking offences like cocaine/heroin , this would prevent criminals from entering the legal market but could force them to stay in the so called black market


idea # 4 determine allowable locations for marijuana businesses . should a dispensary be allowed to operate within close distance to a high school or college campus ? this is something that should be looked into further

idea # 5 should health warning labels and packaging display bans that currently are in place for tobacco products be in place for marijuana as well ?
should store window displays that feature marijuana products be allowed in public view ? should there be health warning labels that warn against " second hand smoke " and "excessive " consumption of marijuana as well is driving well under the influence ?


idea # 6 should further health studies into the long term effects and effects of marijuana on younger people be done by health Canada ? to determine the exact health and long term effects of marijuana usage ? as we don't seem to know exactly
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 5913
Reputation: 217.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( I had to look back at the recommendations made by the task force , some I mentioned were already in there such as packaging and marketing ,although there reports seems to mention little about who would be allowed to sell marijuana and my suggestion of a licensing system similar to a liquor license doesn't appear to have be mentioned )


Highlights from the federal marijuana task force report

Panel makes over 80 recommendations to advise Liberal government in its legalization push

CBC News Posted: Dec 13, 2016 12:12 PM ET| Last Updated: Dec 13, 2016 5:22 PM ET

The Canadian Medical Association recommended limiting marijuana consumption to individuals over 21, with strict limits on quantity and potency until age 25. But a report from the federal government task force Tuesday says higher age limits would drive young consumers to black market suppliers.

The task force Justin Trudeau's Liberal government appointed to study how marijuana could be legalized and regulated in Canada released its report Tuesday, offering over 80 recommendations.

Pot task force recommends legal cannabis sales be limited to users 18 and over


Here are some highlights from the report:

Sales and marketing
■Set the minimum age of purchase as 18, respecting the rights of provinces and territories to harmonize with sales of alcohol.
■Avoid selling alcohol and cannabis at the same location where possible: dedicated storefronts and direct mail are preferable.
■Limit the density and location of storefronts, including their proximity to schools and parks.
■Regulate retail sales at the provincial and territorial level.
■Restrict the promotion and advertising of cannabis products, similar to restrictions now in place for tobacco.
■Require plain packaging with company name, strain name, price, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) amounts and health warnings.
■Prohibit any product deemed "appealing to children," including products that look like candy.

Taxation
■Establish pricing and taxation following an economic analysis.
■Tax higher potency THC products at a higher rate to discourage purchase.
■Use revenue from cannabis regulation for drug prevention, education and treatment.​



Public consumption and possession
■Extend restrictions on public smoking of tobacco products and vaping to cannabis.
■Allow and regulate dedicated places to consume cannabis products (lounges, for example.)
■Limit public possession to 30 grams of dried, non-medical cannabis or its equivalent, with a corresponding sales limit.

Production and distribution
■Implement a system of licensed producers to grow cannabis in Canada.
■Allow personal cultivation of up to four plants per residence, with a height limit of 100 cm.
■Maintain medical marijuana access separately, with the same tax system as non-medical use.
■Move swiftly to create capacity for producing and selling cannabis.

Public education and safety
■Begin public education strategy immediately.
■Determine how to establish limits to prevent an increase in cannabis-impaired driving.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-1.3894219
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 510
Reputation: 86.5Reputation: 86.5
votes: 2
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heres my take on it.
Idea #1- kind of, but if ( and we know Shoppers is going to) retailer want in they too will have to.
#2-your second point is the key. Give em all one and let them sort it out.
#3-Hard to agree w that, Pharmacists can be convcted and keep a licence.
#4-Dont care, but pharmacy's are near schools so.....?
#5-The fatc that they dont work is moot, I know the Goivt will want those on packages
#6-There have been enough to know this stuff is m,ildly harmful, but yes , study it

18 is fine with me. Cant see a reason to make it higher or lower. Kids will get a hold of it anyway.

Hope Trudeau gets this done sooner than later. And tho I have my doubts, lets hope the price comes down .!
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 5913
Reputation: 217.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
Heres my take on it.
Idea #1- kind of, but if ( and we know Shoppers is going to) retailer want in they too will have to.
#2-your second point is the key. Give em all one and let them sort it out.
#3-Hard to agree w that, Pharmacists can be convcted and keep a licence.
#4-Dont care, but pharmacy's are near schools so.....?
#5-The fatc that they dont work is moot, I know the Goivt will want those on packages
#6-There have been enough to know this stuff is m,ildly harmful, but yes , study it

18 is fine with me. Cant see a reason to make it higher or lower. Kids will get a hold of it anyway.

Hope Trudeau gets this done sooner than later. And tho I have my doubts, lets hope the price comes down .!



I was just trying to create some discussion on the issue , realise that I could do some more research into this industry and the Colorado experiment to gain insight

from what I had read shoppers drug mart is more interested in the medical marijuana market not so much the recreational and there pharmacies would already have certain licenses and regulatory requirements to dispense medicine


its true there is pharmacies near schools but you need a prescription to get most of the prescription drugs , its not like they sell it to anyone who walks in

why would you have an issue with there being criminal background checks done on the people who own the stores or work in the marijuana industry ? considering the fact they are selling a controlled substance , its doesn't seem unreasonable to me to run a background check , a lot of retail stores would do this for there employees and there not selling substances that are stolen as often as marijuana is , I would imagine the LCBO would check any new hires background


I remember from reading past articles that some of these so called " alternative culture " businesses intentionally locate near high schools , I remember reading an article years ago about a local one that sold marijuana smoking accessories and piercing jewellery , and they clearly mentioned they had located near the high school intentionally cause it was where a lot of there business came from
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 510
Reputation: 86.5Reputation: 86.5
votes: 2
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:


I was just trying to create some discussion on the issue , realise that I could do some more research into this industry and the Colorado experiment to gain insight

No complaints from me. Im glad you did this much .
Quote:

from what I had read shoppers drug mart is more interested in the medical marijuana market not so much the recreational and there pharmacies would already have certain licenses and regulatory requirements to dispense medicine

Doesnt make sense to me.

If you sell, you sell. The bigger market is the general public, Shopppers wants to maximize profit so I doubt they would want MedMary jane business solely.

Quote:

its true there is pharmacies near schools but you need a prescription to get most of the prescription drugs , its not like they sell it to anyone who walks in

There are beer stores near schools, liquor stores too. I just dont get this "waa...too close to school' business. It is incumbent on the operators to do things legally and should they be caught , punish them. And what does moving one block away from a school do? Nothing, the kids would walk the extra block.
Quote:

why would you have an issue with there being criminal background checks done on the people who own the stores or work in the marijuana industry ? considering the fact they are selling a controlled substance , its doesn't seem unreasonable to me to run a background check , a lot of retail stores would do this for there employees and there not selling substances that are stolen as often as marijuana is , I would imagine the LCBO would check any new hires background

Because it is illegal to do so, except in certain industries. We are no the US.

Now there are ways to get around this , like asking if the employees is bondable., but that is rare.. And why worry to be honest? The worst offenders for shoplifting is always staff, criminal backgrounds or not. The beer store doesnt, the LCBO doesnt .
Put the onus on the owner to run a clean shop, and if he or she does not....well then they face consequences.
Quote:

I remember from reading past articles that some of these so called " alternative culture " businesses intentionally locate near high schools , I remember reading an article years ago about a local one that sold marijuana smoking accessories and piercing jewellery , and they clearly mentioned they had located near the high school intentionally cause it was where a lot of there business came from
Sure..thats where the money is. Theres a reason fast food joints all assemeble where the poor are. Profit!

I just dont see the worry to be honest.
Legalize, tax and stop the dumbass war on drugs.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 5913
Reputation: 217.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

personally think that were dealing with a "unique " industry , were talking about something that was entirely "illegal " not that long ago , the pot smokers can't really expect to go from that to an entirely legal and open system without any significant restrictions being put in place

alcohol is " legal " in Ontario but its heavily controlled and regulated , to operate a bar/restaurant and sell liquor , the operator has to apply for a license and those licenses often come with many restrictions relating to capacity , noise and such . its not a free for all environment like at a college house party


so I don't think that if some reasonable restrictions were brought forward relating to marijuana it would be that unreasonable and would likely find a lot of support in the suburbs among the so called soccer mom crowd , they wouldn't find a lot of support downtown or on college campuses but they wouldn't really want any restrictions


from what I know in Ontario , criminal background checks are used in other areas , pretty sure to volunteer with many organizations here you need to get a police background check nowdays , at least that's what I remember especially if the volunteering involved children
I really don't see it being unreasonable to have a criminal background check done on someone if they want to open a store that sells marijuana in our community , think we have the right to at least know they aren't coming from a criminal background and have legitimate business intentions
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 3829
Reputation: 228.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
( I had to look back at the recommendations made by the task force , some I mentioned were already in there such as packaging and marketing ,although there reports seems to mention little about who would be allowed to sell marijuana and my suggestion of a licensing system similar to a liquor license doesn't appear to have be mentioned )


Highlights from the federal marijuana task force report

Panel makes over 80 recommendations to advise Liberal government in its legalization push

CBC News Posted: Dec 13, 2016 12:12 PM ET| Last Updated: Dec 13, 2016 5:22 PM ET

The Canadian Medical Association recommended limiting marijuana consumption to individuals over 21, with strict limits on quantity and potency until age 25. But a report from the federal government task force Tuesday says higher age limits would drive young consumers to black market suppliers.

The task force Justin Trudeau's Liberal government appointed to study how marijuana could be legalized and regulated in Canada released its report Tuesday, offering over 80 recommendations.

Pot task force recommends legal cannabis sales be limited to users 18 and over


Here are some highlights from the report:

Sales and marketing
■Set the minimum age of purchase as 18, respecting the rights of provinces and territories to harmonize with sales of alcohol.
■Avoid selling alcohol and cannabis at the same location where possible: dedicated storefronts and direct mail are preferable.
■Limit the density and location of storefronts, including their proximity to schools and parks.
■Regulate retail sales at the provincial and territorial level.
■Restrict the promotion and advertising of cannabis products, similar to restrictions now in place for tobacco.
■Require plain packaging with company name, strain name, price, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) amounts and health warnings.
■Prohibit any product deemed "appealing to children," including products that look like candy.

Taxation
■Establish pricing and taxation following an economic analysis.
■Tax higher potency THC products at a higher rate to discourage purchase.
■Use revenue from cannabis regulation for drug prevention, education and treatment.​



Public consumption and possession
■Extend restrictions on public smoking of tobacco products and vaping to cannabis.
■Allow and regulate dedicated places to consume cannabis products (lounges, for example.)
■Limit public possession to 30 grams of dried, non-medical cannabis or its equivalent, with a corresponding sales limit.

Production and distribution
■Implement a system of licensed producers to grow cannabis in Canada.
■Allow personal cultivation of up to four plants per residence, with a height limit of 100 cm.
■Maintain medical marijuana access separately, with the same tax system as non-medical use.
■Move swiftly to create capacity for producing and selling cannabis.

Public education and safety
■Begin public education strategy immediately.
■Determine how to establish limits to prevent an increase in cannabis-impaired driving.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-1.3894219


This is the window-dressing, to make it look as if everything has aleady been considered, so you little people don't need to bother us with your opinions. What makes it a problem is that they aren't just 'legalizing' it, they are also cartelizing it, and taxing it. And it isn't the 'legalizing' that's the problem. It's the cartelizing that is the problem.

Talk about that, or as they say on TV, follow the money.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 3829
Reputation: 228.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a selection from a larger article on another topic -- decisions that the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) had made during the Obama administration. More than most, that administration was influenced by donation monies, and the suggestion was that a few of the FDA's decisions reflected that.

But buried in the article were comments on 'medical marijuana'. Here they are.

Quote:
Allowing Recreational and ‘Medical’ Marijuana Use

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance by the federal government. Following the 2016 election cycle, however, voters approved recreational cannabis use in eight more states plus Washington DC for recreational or medical use.

“Recreational” inherently means that there is no medical utility. The percentage of Americans now living in an area where recreational marijuana is legal rose from 5 percent to 20 percent. Marijuana is not uniquely qualified for any medical condition and can be unquestionably dangerous.

The percentage of Americans now living in an area where recreational marijuana is legal rose from 5 percent to 20 percent.
Tobacco is becoming taboo and is banned in new places every day, but people don’t realize that marijuana has a greater potential to damage the heart, brain, and lungs. It delivers more tar to the lungs than tobacco does, along with more cancer-causing chemicals. It also decreases IQ scores, even when users are not under its influence. People are unwise to think that marijuana is anything less than unquestionably terrible for their health.

Although it has some positive pharmacological activity in specific disease states, cannabis is a poor and distant fifth- or sixth-line therapy following the failure of already approved medications that do a better job. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, I don’t think we can put America back to work, grow the domestic economy, or even dream to “Make America Great Again” by legalizing recreational marijuana for everyone who feels like taking it, unless the International Statistical Classification of Diseases develops a new ICD10 code of “I’m bored and want to get high”(sic).

America is distracted enough as it is, and the incidence of marijuana-caused fatal car accidents caused by impaired driving is growing, (doubling due to marijuana legalization in Washington state). Our out of control national debt and double-digit unemployment are very serious problems. The last thing we need to do right now is encourage our population to slow down and gain even more weight. It’s bad enough that we already lose so many Americans to cigarettes, alcoholism, and drunken driving. Do we really want to potentially endorse the loss of millions more potentially productive Americans via marijuana?

Tobacco is becoming taboo and is banned in new places every day, but people don’t realize that marijuana has a greater potential to damage the heart, brain, and lungs.
The fact is: marijuana is a drug, and like all drugs, can have the potential for serious adverse effects. Marijuana has known interactions with more than 550 different medications. These new recreational marijuana users and most of the questionable “medical marijuana” users are oblivious to the pharmacology when they bypass the FDA and buy marijuana at a dispensary from people who know almost nothing about the clinical pharmacology of cannabinoids, evaluating adverse events or drug-drug interactions. I believe only a licensed pharmacist should be allowed to dispense marijuana so they can regulate dispensation and counsel users appropriately with regards to its serious actions and drug interactions.

Americans need to ask themselves some important questions: Is legalizing marijuana going to make this a better country or a worse one? Would you want to live in a neighborhood filled with people who regularly smoke marijuana? Would you want your children regularly smoking marijuana?

The FDA’s sleepy “hands-off” policy has led to marijuana legalization with essentially zero oversight. At this rate, I wonder if the FDA will ever speak out on this irresponsibly used and abused controlled substance.

To summarize, the FDA has six divisions that oversee new drug approvals, but only three have one or more controversial approvals. President Trump has appointed Dr. Scott Gottlieb to be the next leader of the FDA. I believe the Senate would be wise to approve his appointment without delay. Gottlieb was the strongest candidate based on his extensive experience in investigational medicine, and his prior experience as an FDA deputy commissioner give him knowledge of internal FDA operations.

With his experience and highly competent past FDA leadership experience, Gottlieb will oversee all the FDA divisions with better scrutiny than the prior commissioner did.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/.....c-83873765


Full disclosure: I have been a user, and am still opposed to the so-called War on Drugs. I post this simply because it seems to be an informed opinion by an expert in the field of pharmacology.

Thoughts?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 5913
Reputation: 217.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

politics

Bill to legalize marijuana expected to be tabled on Thursday


Daniel Leblanc


OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail


Published Monday, Apr. 10, 2017 11:26AM EDT


The federal government’s proposed legislation to legalize marijuana, which is set to be tabled on Thursday, is expected to tightly control the ability of producers to market their products to the public, sources said.

The proposed legislation is expected to call for plain packaging for recreational marijuana that would make the marketing of the drug more akin to tobacco products than alcohol.

“It would be hard to imagine a scenario where you could sell pot like you could sell booze,” said a senior government official.

The official acknowledged there is a “big gap” between the government’s position on packaging and a recent proposal from Canada’s licensed producers of marijuana, which have been getting ready to produce marijuana for the multibillion-dollar recreational market.

Explainer: Legalized marijuana is coming, but what does it mean to you?

After it is tabled in the House, the legislation to legalize marijuana will be studied in committee in coming weeks, but it remains unclear when it will be adopted by Parliament.

In terms of the timing for the opening of the legal marijuana market, a key issue will be the ability of the provinces to develop the necessary infrastructure to distribute and sell marijuana to Canada’s adult population.

Sources said the legislation tabled this week will include penalties for those who provide marijuana to people under the age of 18 or 19, which is expected to be the legal threshold for recreational consumption.

“The goal will not simply be to legalize marijuana, but also to prevent youth from having access to it,” a senior official said.

Still, the legislative package unveiled this week is not expected to include all provisions that need to be put in place before marijuana is officially legal. For example, the final plan to enforce provisions against drug-impaired driving are not expected to be released until the government publishes the results of a recent pilot project on saliva-based roadside tests.

In a recent letter to the government, producers of medical marijuana called on Ottawa to give them some leverage to promote their products to the public. In the letter, the heads of companies such as Tilray Canada Inc., Canopy Growth Corp. and CannTrust Inc. said that the government should allow marijuana to be sold in containers with colourful lettering and logos, as long as they are not targeted at children.

A key argument for the licensed producers is that they have to create a product that can compete with the black market that sells illegally harvested marijuana.

“Packaging debates are often driven by public health concerns but in order to develop well-rounded public policy, rules surrounding packaging and in-store promotion must take into account the current status of the large, illegal cannabis black market and the harms it causes youth and society more generally,” said the letter dated March 21.

“Therefore, there must be allowances for branding as well as for in-store advertising of cannabis products to ensure that consumers who have already self-selected to enter a legal cannabis retailer will be well-informed about the products they are purchasing,” the letter said.

The governing Liberals used last year’s 4/20 celebrations – festivals held every year on April 20, in which marijuana enthusiasts publicly light up – to announce that they would table their legislation this spring. The government is expected to table the long-awaited bill ahead of that same date this year, sources said.

Liberal MP Bill Blair, who is parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice and Ottawa’s point man on the legalization file, has said that the production and sale of marijuana will be tightly regulated.

The legislation will be inspired by a task force that was led by former Liberal minister Anne McLellan, which proposed a complete legalization model in a well-received report last year.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already endorsed one of its key recommendations, namely that marijuana should be legal for 18- or 19-year-olds, depending on each province’s legal drinking age.

The task force also urged the government to allow Canadians to buy or carry 30 grams of marijuana for personal use, and to grow up to four plants at home. The task force also recommended a system that would feature storefront sales and mail-order distribution, and allow a wide range of producers to operate legally, including “craft” growers and the current producers of medical marijuana.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....e34650753/
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7308
Reputation: 290.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are two route forward here;

Rushing to meet this 2018 deadline which given the sheer amount of bureaucracy that needs to be completed seems significant and not likely to be completed in time;

Or wait till 2019 and have this be an election issue again.

The Liberals will have a few chickens coming home to roost on economic and military spending and decisions they have kicked down the road which they need to mitigate in Election Season and this seems like the Perfect issue for that.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 3829
Reputation: 228.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is this an election issue? I don't see why it needs to involve a lot of bureaucracy. Believe me, there is probably no nascent industry in Canada that has more raw entrepreneurial talent at its disposal than the cannabis industry.

What takes the time is preventing the entrepreneurial energy from expressing itself, and thwarting it with bureaucracy. It's cartelizing the trade and taxing it that is complicated. Frankly, I don't think they can do it without making cultivation illegal, and giving licenses to loyal Liberals.

The government want it to be like liquor, producing the extra tax income that they need so that Justin can continue to holiday with the Aga Khan.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 510
Reputation: 86.5Reputation: 86.5
votes: 2
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
enough as it is, and the incidence of marijuana-caused fatal car accidents caused by impaired driving is growing, (doubling due to marijuana legalization in Washington state)

LOL !

I guess they can write what they want , but most should see through that this is absolute BS.

Probably why there is no link to back that assertion up.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7308
Reputation: 290.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Is this an election issue? I don't see why it needs to involve a lot of bureaucracy.


It would be an interesting tactic if it was an open issue prior to the election;
With a firm in-effect date after the election.

Especially if the CPC was campaigning to block it.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 3829
Reputation: 228.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why would the CPC do that? It isn't as if the law is, or has been, an effective means to stop it.

They'd just make themselves look square. It'd be like opposing same-sex marriage.

Where the 'war on drugs' might seem (to the Tim Hortons voter) to be relevant would be with crystal meth and fentanyl, and all of that kind of stuff. But the law has shown itself to be powerless to stop the phenomenon. It can bust people, but others replace them before they get to trial.

When the government started talking about legalization, the culture came to accept that repression hasn't worked and that there's no real point in prosecuting marijuana users.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7308
Reputation: 290.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Why would the CPC do that? It isn't as if the law is, or has been, an effective means to stop it.


I would imagine that will have everything to do with who wins the leadership.
Some candidates seem content with looking square.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


they may be legalising it but how should it be restricted ?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB