[Brenda]

$1:

"The Canadian people think that they're saving tax dollars by buying these illicit tobacco, but in fact, they're financing organized crime groups that are using the geography of our border to move illegal products back and forth and then to financially gain from the sale of this illicit project," Harvey said. "It is a public safety issue."

I doubt anyone cares. People don't want to pay $10/pack.

[andyt]

On reserves grown accustomed to poverty, the illegal tobacco factories are the heart of a solidly entrenched economic powerhouse, broadly supported and responsible for new mansions, nice cars and general financial wellbeing. In a striking reflection of the complex relationship between non-native governments and First Nations, they are often allowed to operate with virtual impunity.

Akwesasne Mohawk reserve, straddling the border with the U.S and perfect for trade in contraband. Yet Akwesasne’s smuggling origins lie with legal, big-tobacco companies, and smuggling’s resurgence in the last several years came despite urgent warnings from Mohawk leaders to the federal government.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

What's going to change when you decriminalize or legalize it, other than tax-income?

People will still grow and use, it will still be dealt, houses will still be ruined, people will still be shot and kids will still find it easier to get to than booze (although I doubt that is true, since everyone has booze in their cupboard or fridge, which they can steal, but I ain't got no pot in my house).

XTC is also very easy to come by (hell, it is dealt in schools, as is pot), should we legalize that too, just because it is used now anyway?

Yep, big hit of tax income to the govt, that is now going to gangs. Govt richer, gangs poorer, it's good thing. That money can be put towards prevention and treatment. We only have 100 detox beds across Canada - only 6 for women in BC. We need way more detox and rehab places to help people get off harder drugs. Pot taxes could fund those.

Your second paragraph - all at way way lower rates than now.

3rd para - yes, legalize it and regulate it. X has been rated by British docs as far less damaging than booze. It should certainly be legal to use for psychotherapy, but yes, I'd rather have a kid doing clean X of known dosage than the crap they're swallowing now. Kids find booze harder to get than pot, because booze is regulated and so harder for underagers to acess. Maybe same would be true for X. Are our current laws preventing X use, or only leading to deaths from contaminated X? How many kids die each year from alcohol poisoning, why aren't you advocating making booze illegal?

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

What's going to change when you decriminalize or legalize it, other than tax-income?

People will still grow and use, it will still be dealt, houses will still be ruined, people will still be shot and kids will still find it easier to get to than booze (although I doubt that is true, since everyone has booze in their cupboard or fridge, which they can steal, but I ain't got no pot in my house).

XTC is also very easy to come by (hell, it is dealt in schools, as is pot), should we legalize that too, just because it is used now anyway?

Yep, big hit of tax income to the govt, that is now going to gangs. Govt richer, gangs poorer, it's good thing.

It would be nice if it worked that way, but Walhalla does not exist. Sorry to burst your bubble.

$1:

That money can be put towards prevention and treatment.

Treatment for what? It's not hazardous when used the way it should, right?

$1:

We only have 100 detox beds across Canada - only 6 for women in BC. We need way more detox and rehab places to help people get off harder drugs. Pot taxes could fund those.

Apparently, we don't need more, right?
Or is it that we can't afford more because we don't tax drugs? ANY drugs?

$1:

Your second paragraph - all at way way lower rates than now.

Nonsense.

$1:

3rd para - yes, legalize it and regulate it. X has been rated by British docs as far less damaging than booze.

You are out of your mind. Seriously. One glass of beer does not kill you.

$1:

It should certainly be legal to use for psychotherapy, but yes, I'd rather have a kid doing clean X of known dosage than the crap they're swallowing now.

What do you think they would rather buy, a $5 pill from that friend of a friend, or go to the doctors office and pay $25 for a pill, which they won't get anyway, because that kind of drugs would not be prescribed to kids

$1:

Kids find booze harder to get than pot, because booze is regulated and so harder for underagers to acess.

Bullshit. Your mom's fridge is very easy to access, and that friend of a friend who is over 19 has no problem getting you some for a profit.

$1:

Maybe same would be true for X. Are our current laws preventing X use, or only leading to deaths from contaminated X? How many kids die each year from alcohol poisoning, why aren't you advocating making booze illegal?

I don't know, but I do know how many have died here in this area alone from XTC. Not from booze. Drinking and driving, yes, bot od-ed on booze? I guess 0

[Thanos]

With the number of threads that keep getting started on this moronic subject, Trevor should just change all the CKA maple leafs he uses for decorations to pot leafs and get the whole thing over with already.

[andyt]

andyt andyt:

Yep, big hit of tax income to the govt, that is now going to gangs. Govt richer, gangs poorer, it's good thing.

Brenda Brenda:

It would be nice if it worked that way, but Walhalla does not exist. Sorry to burst your bubble.

What a pile of crap. You're using the usual strawman argument that if legalization doesn't eliminate all illegal activity it's not worth doing. Legalization knocked the hell out of illegal booze - it will do the same for pot.

andyt andyt:

That money can be put towards prevention and treatment.

Brenda Brenda:

Treatment for what? It's not hazardous when used the way it should, right?

If it's not hazardous, why do you want to ban it? It's certainly way less hazardous than booze. Doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the dangers (prevention) and help those people who can't stop on their own.

andyt andyt:

Kids find booze harder to get than pot, because booze is regulated and so harder for underagers to acess.

Brenda Brenda:

Bullshit. Your mom's fridge is very easy to access, and that friend of a friend who is over 19 has no problem getting you some for a profit.

Ah, so you're the expert on this - why is nobody listening to you?

andyt andyt:

Maybe same would be true for X. Are our current laws preventing X use, or only leading to deaths from contaminated X? How many kids die each year from alcohol poisoning, why aren't you advocating making booze illegal?

Brenda Brenda:

I don't know, but I do know how many have died here in this area alone from XTC. Not from booze. Drinking and driving, yes, bot od-ed on booze? I guess 0

You're right, you don't know. How many died, and was it pure X or adulterated? Pure X, as long as you drink enough, isn't that dangerous. Massachusetts saw 228 deaths from alcohol poisoning in 2008 - they have about 6,5 million people, so say in BC you could expect 150 deaths every year. How many people die from inhaling their own vomit when they pass out? (Certainly seems popular among rock stars) Just nobody makes a fuss about it.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Booze costs pennies the bottle to produce, yet look at the price of booze. Why is there no thriving illegal booze produced?

No, just a half a billion dollar underground economy for smuggled booze.

[Thanos]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Booze costs pennies the bottle to produce, yet look at the price of booze. Why is there no thriving illegal booze produced?

No, just a half a billion dollar underground economy for smuggled booze.

Doesn't count because facts like these get in the way of the current vibe. There's a massive denial of reality here in just how successful criminals are at making profits off of that which is illegal.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Yep, big hit of tax income to the govt, that is now going to gangs. Govt richer, gangs poorer, it's good thing. That money can be put towards prevention and treatment. We only have 100 detox beds across Canada - only 6 for women in BC. We need way more detox and rehab places to help people get off harder drugs. Pot taxes could fund those.

andy, answer a question for us.

And how much of that money will go to regulation, inspection and the spin-off health effects of making a drug more accessible?

[peck420]

FYI

Very few houses would be 'ruined' if growing pot was legal.

In almost every insurance repair that I have taken part in, the damage occurs specifically because they are trying to hide the grow op.

They do not provide proper ventilation and humidity controls. Both are highly visible to those that are looking, and can very easily 'tip' the LEO's to a grow op.

How many people have ruined houses from tobacco grow ops? Not many. Why? Because all the appropriate tools to grow it safely are readily available on the market and they help minimise the damages of growing a high humidity, pungent substance in the house.

In this respect, it is highly likely that legalising grow ops would very much reduce the risk of damaged properties.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Booze costs pennies the bottle to produce, yet look at the price of booze. Why is there no thriving illegal booze produced?

No, just a half a billion dollar underground economy for smuggled booze.

Compared to what is the aboveground economy? What would happen to that aboveground economy if booze was made illegal?

[OnTheIce]

peck420 peck420:

FYI

Very few houses would be 'ruined' if growing pot was legal.

In almost every insurance repair that I have taken part in, the damage occurs specifically because they are trying to hide the grow op.

They do not provide proper ventilation and humidity controls. Both are highly visible to those that are looking, and can very easily 'tip' the LEO's to a grow op.

How many people have ruined houses from tobacco grow ops? Not many. Why? Because all the appropriate tools to grow it safely are readily available on the market and they help minimise the damages of growing a high humidity, pungent substance in the house.

In this respect, it is highly likely that legalising grow ops would very much reduce the risk of damaged properties.

Yet cities wouldn't allow a grow op, that requires that much ventilation and/or power consumption into a residential area anyways. Imagine how bad property values would be affected.

You want to grow a couple plants for personal use, that's fine... full operations have no place in a residential area.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Yep, big hit of tax income to the govt, that is now going to gangs. Govt richer, gangs poorer, it's good thing. That money can be put towards prevention and treatment. We only have 100 detox beds across Canada - only 6 for women in BC. We need way more detox and rehab places to help people get off harder drugs. Pot taxes could fund those.

andy, answer a question for us.

And how much of that money will go to regulation, inspection and the spin-off health effects of making a drug more accessible?

We already have regulation and inspection by the police. Since they would not be doing it to nearly the same degree, there's a net saving there. Health effects of pot consumption are currently minimal - on a bar graph comparing them to alcohol and cigs it was so little there was no bar there. Do you really think that legalization would unleash a flood of new users? Would you be one of them? Anybody you know that isn't using now?

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

peck420 peck420:

FYI

Very few houses would be 'ruined' if growing pot was legal.

In almost every insurance repair that I have taken part in, the damage occurs specifically because they are trying to hide the grow op.

They do not provide proper ventilation and humidity controls. Both are highly visible to those that are looking, and can very easily 'tip' the LEO's to a grow op.

How many people have ruined houses from tobacco grow ops? Not many. Why? Because all the appropriate tools to grow it safely are readily available on the market and they help minimise the damages of growing a high humidity, pungent substance in the house.

In this respect, it is highly likely that legalising grow ops would very much reduce the risk of damaged properties.

Yet cities wouldn't allow a grow op, that requires that much ventilation and/or power consumption into a residential area anyways. Imagine how bad property values would be affected.

You want to grow a couple plants for personal use, that's fine... full operations have no place in a residential area.

Nor would any sane person attempt to grow a full pot operation in a residential area, anymore than we have tomato or green pepper greenhouses in them. You go where land is cheap and where zoning regs allow it. Houses are not efficient for growing crops. They're used, as Peck says, to hid the crop that's being grown.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Yep, big hit of tax income to the govt, that is now going to gangs. Govt richer, gangs poorer, it's good thing. That money can be put towards prevention and treatment. We only have 100 detox beds across Canada - only 6 for women in BC. We need way more detox and rehab places to help people get off harder drugs. Pot taxes could fund those.

andy, answer a question for us.

And how much of that money will go to regulation, inspection and the spin-off health effects of making a drug more accessible?

We already have regulation and inspection by the police. Since they would not be doing it to nearly the same degree, there's a net saving there. Health effects of pot consumption are currently minimal - on a bar graph comparing them to alcohol and cigs it was so little there was no bar there. Do you really think that legalization would unleash a flood of new users? Would you be one of them? Anybody you know that isn't using now?

So more speculation.

You don't think that making something legal, cheaper and more accessible won't increase consumption and bring new users on board?