[Lemmy]

Curtman Curtman:

I'm not asking you what party you support. I'm asking g if you support policy that works over policy that doesn't. If your political allegiance prevents you from doing that, just say that.

Yeah, but your question was this:

Curtman Curtman:

Do you support the taxation and regulation of marijuana?

He answered you. And my answer to the question is "no" also. People who have medical exemptions are already turning to illegal supply sources now. Those with medical-use cards used to be able to grow their own. Now, the government is saying they have to buy government pot. The users are saying "nope, we want to continue growing our own." So now, when the government notices that the legal user isn't purchasing the government product, he/she is going to have to answer a bunch of questions. So the user is better to tear up their card and go off the government's radar. The government's insistence that users buy government-weed is a colossal error that will keep criminal gangs in business.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

I'm not asking you what party you support. I'm asking g if you support policy that works over policy that doesn't. If your political allegiance prevents you from doing that, just say that.

And I answered you.

Your suggestion that this policy 'works' comes without facts or any substance in terms of implementation.

[Curtman]

Lemmy Lemmy:

And my answer to the question is "no" also. People who have medical exemptions are already turning to illegal supply sources now. Those with medical-use cards used to be able to grow their own. Now, the government is saying they have to buy government pot. The users are saying "nope, we want to continue growing our own." So now, when the government notices that the legal user isn't purchasing the government product, he/she is going to have to answer a bunch of questions. So the user is better to tear up their card and go off the government's radar. The government's insistence that users buy government-weed is a colossal error that will keep criminal gangs in business.

You're talking about two separate things. There's no reason to believe that tax and regulate would or should prohibit people from growing their own. Is there anything preventing tobacco users from growing tobacco? I have no idea.

What you are against is the Harper government micro-managing Health Canada, and causing hardship to patients in the name of their stupid war-on-drugs philosophy.

What I was responding to was this drivel:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Personally, I find it sad and somewhat pathetic that you would support a party based on a sole issue like this when we have far greater issues to tackle as a Country.

I think it's sad and very pathetic that conversations with OutToLunch always become this. He's imagined a scenario where the only reason I support the Liberals is because they are for tax & regulate, and twisted it into one of his condescending attacks. I supported them in the last election, even with Iggy's comments about how he'd rather people were digging ditches than smoking pot and being against tax & regulate even though we voted for it at convention. Iggy's incapable of discussing the issue without first analysing how it relates to current Harper policy.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I've yet to see anything credible on how the drug will be manufactured, who will manufacture it, how it will be sold, how much it'll be sold for and how it will be distributed.

Add to that the addiction our governments both Federally and Provincially have with sin taxes, I can see the price getting out of hand and one of the key benefits of regulation goes by the wayside when the government prices themselves out of the market.

We have several examples of models that work better than prohibition. Tobacco, alcohol, medicinal marijuana. We've established that tobacco regulation is better at reducing use and the black market than prohibition. So he's taken us full circle to tax & regulate won't rid us of 100% of the black market, and the cycle begins anew.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

I think it's sad and very pathetic that conversations with OutToLunch always become this. He's imagined a scenario where the only reason I support the Liberals is because they are for tax & regulate, and twisted it into one of his condescending attacks. I supported them in the last election, even with Iggy's comments about how he'd rather people were digging ditches than smoking pot and being against tax & regulate even though we voted for it at convention. He's incapable of discussing the issue without first analysing how it relates to current Harper policy.

Perhaps one day you can converse like an adult. Until then, I guess we'll have to settle for what we have with you Curt....a chronic whiner that loves to push an agenda and cries when he doesn't get his way and leaves, stomping his feet.

You have zero credibility.

Enjoy beating your dead horse. It's a sad life you lead.

This will be the last time I post on any of your spam.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

This will be the last time I post on any of your spam.

Thanks.

[jj2424]

woo hoo..it's Friday night ..more bong time for the stoners

[Curtman]

Colorado voters to decide how to tax pot

$1:

DENVER — A pro-pot jingle in Colorado last year went like this: “Jobs for our people/Money for schools/Who could ask for more?” Nearly a year after Colorado legalized recreational weed, voters get the chance to decide exactly how much more — in taxes.

On Tuesday, voters decide whether to approve a 15 percent pot excise tax to pay for school construction, plus an extra sales tax of 10 percent to fund marijuana enforcement.

Some pot activists are campaigning against the taxes, arguing that marijuana should be taxed like beer, which has a tax rate of 8 cents a gallon. They’ve handed out free joints at tax protests.

“Our alcohol system is regulated just fine with the taxes they have, so we don’t see any need for this huge grab for cash from marijuana,” said Miguel Lopez, volunteer coordinator for the small opposition campaign to Colorado’s pot tax measure.

While polls suggest the tax is going to pass — even in this state where voters frequently reject new taxes — it is very much an open question how much the state is going to reap.

A projection prepared for voters by state fiscal analysts predicted the taxes would bring in $70 million a year. But an early draft of Colorado’s first budget after retail sales begin, the 2014-15 fiscal year, doesn’t include an amount they expect in pot revenue.

Washington state isn’t counting on pot revenue, either.

Voters in that state set tax rates when they approved legalization last year. Taxes will be 25 percent, levied at least twice and up to three times between when the pot is grown and when it reaches the customer, plus sales tax.

Marijuana’s tax potential is an important question for the prospects for pot legalization in other states. If pot proves a tax windfall for Colorado and Washington, other states may be inclined to look favorably on legal weed.

But if recreational pot smokers in the two states stay in the black market to avoid taxes, while the price tag for regulating a new industry balloons, marijuana legalization could suddenly look like a bad deal.

That’s why many in Colorado’s marijuana industry are pushing the tax measure. They say that because most people don’t use marijuana, the public needs to see a public benefit from making the drug legal.

“Taxes are an opportunity for marijuana to show it can play a valuable role in the community,” said Joe Megyesy, spokesman for the campaign promoting the tax measure.

Still unclear is how the new marijuana market responds.

Colorado’s medical marijuana framework will remain in place, with a much lower taxation rate. Heavy pot users could save a lot of money by paying nominal annual fees to be on the state medical marijuana registry and paying only regular sales taxes on their pot.

Colorado also allows growing pot at home without a license, allowing users to avoid taxes entirely.

It’s too soon to say what will happen to recreational pot prices after retail sales begin next year. But if current prices hold, Colorado’s proposed tax rate would add about $50 to an ounce of medium-quality loose marijuana, roughly the amount that would fit in a sandwich-sized plastic bag.

[Curtman]

Portland, Maine, Legalizes Recreational Marijuana

$1:

Portland, Maine, voters on Tuesday approved legalizing recreational marijuana for residents 21 and older. The measure, Question 1, passed with about 70 percent of the vote, making Portland the first East Coast city to legalize recreational pot.

Adult residents of Portland -- Maine's largest city -- may possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana under the referendum. The new measure does not permit the recreational purchase or sale of marijuana, nor does it permit its use in public spaces like parks.

"Most Portlanders, like most Americans, are fed up with our nation's failed marijuana prohibition laws," said David Boyer of the Marijuana Policy Project, a marijuana advocacy group. "We applaud Portland voters for adopting a smarter marijuana policy, and we look forward to working with city officials to ensure it is implemented."

Medical marijuana is already legal in Maine, and the Portland referendum is seen as largely symbolic, as it does not override state or federal laws. But the passage could spark further efforts to legalize recreational marijuana in the state, as it was in Washington and Colorado in November 2012.

"I think there's national implications, keeping the momentum that Washington and Colorado started last November in ending marijuana prohibition," said Boyert in anticipation of the vote. "This is just the next domino."

While the measure did not face organized opposition, some did raise concern over the Marijuana Policy Project's Metro bus ad campaign. Some said the ads promoted the use of marijuana, not just the passage of Question 1.

"It's highly inappropriate to be promoting pro-marijuana message in a place that has a large audience of people under the age of 21," said drug prevention group 21 Reasons spokeswoman Kate Perkins to local news group WCHS.

Metro officials reviewed the transit agency's policy and said the ads fall in line with political advertisements.

[Lemmy]

Curtman Curtman:

Portland, Maine, Legalizes Recreational Marijuana

Starting to think that Maine will be more than just a place of summer residency for me at some point.

[Curtman]

Marijuana Prices: Canada No Longer Cheaper Than U.S.

$1:

The U.S.’s marijuana industry is poised to be among the fastest growing sectors of the economy, outpacing even the smartphone market’s booming growth, a new study says.

The legal marijuana market in the U.S. is projected to grow by 64 per cent over the next year, to $2.34 billion U.S., according to the second edition of the State of Legal Marijuana Markets reports.

But what about Canada? It seems despite its reputation for progressive attitudes on weed, the Great White North is falling behind its southern neighbour on the issue. One way this can be seen is in the prices people pay for pot.

A decade or more ago, high quality B.C. bud retailed on the streets of Los Angeles for as much as $600 per ounce, three times what it cost in B.C. According to PriceOfWeed.com, a website that crowdsources data on marijuana prices, an ounce of high-quality weed in California these days goes for about $249 U.S.

With the U.S. moving steadily towards more liberal policies on weed, Canada’s price advantage on weed has all but disappeared.

Below is a comparison of retail prices for marijuana in Canadian provinces and select U.S. locations. Surprisingly, even though B.C. has a reputation for being Canada’s marijuana capital, British Columbians actually pay more for weed than people in some other provinces. The most expensive weed in Canada? It's in Nunavut. At $783.86 per ounce, it's nearly double the price of the most expensive place to buy weed in the U.S. and easily the highest price on the continent.

Notably, weed is now much cheaper in the western U.S. than in the east, thanks to states like California, Colorado and Washington, who have pushed the legalization movement farther than in other parts of the country.

Twenty U.S. states and the District of Columbia now have medical marijuana programs. Another dozen or so states are debating the idea, and following Colorado and Washington’s successful marijuana decriminalization votes in the past election, more such votes are likely to take place in future elections.

But in Canada, reforms to the medical marijuana market meant to encourage the development of large-scale legal marijuana growers will actually mean higher prices for legal weed.

Legal pot currently retails at $5 per gram, well below street prices, but that price is projected to rise to $7.60 under Health Canada’s new system, and is expected to rise to $8.80 in several years’ time.

It’s not clear what impact the new medical marijuana regime will have on street retail prices.

[Curtman]

Justin Trudeau, Peter MacKay trade barbs over marijuana

$1:

Just as a news conference was ending at a meeting of Canada's justice ministers, MacKay interrupted saying he heard that Trudeau had discussed legalizing marijuana in front of elementary school children in Brandon, Man.
...
"We have no intention of decriminalizing marijuana. And he can shout this from the hilltops as much as he likes, but going before school children, in my view, crosses the line of appropriate behaviour for a federal leader."

Jillian Austin, a reporter for the Brandon Sun newspaper, was at the Trudeau event this week and said the Liberal leader spoke to a group of teens in the gym at the Sioux Valley First Nations school.

His statement on marijuana was a response to a question from a student, she said.

Austin said Trudeau started by saying that marijuana was dangerous for young people, because their minds are still developing, but that he believes regulating pot will make it safer for children.

Trudeau issued a statement late Thursday calling on MacKay to retract his comments.

"The students in the room applauded a politician with a message to stay off drugs, and that the current system is not doing enough to keep it out of the hands of kids," the statement said.

"That the Conservatives would put out a statement condemning the courage showed by those students is shameful."

PMac couldn't help taking a few pot shots I guess.

Are they really against talking to teens about drugs now?

[Curtman]

Great blog post..

$1:

Connie Carter, Ph.D. is the Senior Policy Analyst at the CDPC and a graduate of the UVIC Department of Sociology. She received a Bombardier Fellowship for her work analyzing citizen groups and government policy-makers as they responded to the issue of crystal meth use in BC in the early 2000s.
Posted on November 20, 2013 by Connie

Cannabis regulation is by no means a simple matter, but it can be done

$1:

At the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC) one of things we’ve noticed is that any blog we publish on cannabis regulation attracts more attention than any other topic. This is because there’s widespread interest in any discussion of changes to the laws that govern cannabis. Unfortunately when it comes to the nuts and bolts of cannabis regulation – in other words – the how of regulation, interest tends to drop off. This is because regulation is actually rather tedious. This claim is borne out by the length of the proposed regulations for legal recreational cannabis markets in the U.S. states of Washington and Colorado. That’s why I’m going to make a special plea to you our dear readers to stay with me as I say a few words about what regulation might actually entail.

I think it’s fair to suggest that the CDPC favours a model of regulation that draws on the best evidence from public health regulation of alcohol and tobacco. But when it comes to cannabis regulation the devil really is in the details.
There’s no magic bullet that will make all the current problems with cannabis prohibition disappear. But thanks to the Health Officer’s Council of BC, some of the heavy lifting when it comes to creating models for drug regulation has been done. If you’re curious, check out their 2011 report. As you can see from the diagram drawn from their 2011 report, regulations for cannabis should not be so loose that they create a free and unregulated market for cannabis; nor should regulations be so overly restrictive that we end up reproducing the negative aspects of the current underground economy (control by organized crime, etc.).

At the same time we need to be clear about the goals we hope to achieve with a legal regulated market for cannabis. Ideally our regulations will help protect and improve public health, reduce drug related crime, protect the young and vulnerable, protect human rights and provide good value for money. So what are some of the things we’ll need to consider? How about we start with the basics.

Presumably legalization would entail the removal of cannabis from Schedule 2 of the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, followed by its inclusion in the Food and Drug Act. It seems like the next logical thing to do would be to then turn over the regulation of cannabis to the provinces, in the same way that alcohol is currently regulated. We would want to ensure that there is at least some consistency across the provinces so that means somebody at the federal level will have to oversee the regulations as they emerge. That’s the easy part because legalization would ALSO entail consideration of at least the following issues: production, product, packaging, vendor and outlet controls, marketing controls, creation of a system of regulators and inspectors as well as on-going research and monitoring.

For this blog post, I want to focus on production and product controls. Future blogs may consider the other items on the already long list noted above. My comments are phrased as questions to stimulate discussion of regulation rather than to propose firm rules for how a legal recreational cannabis market might operate.

In Canada, marijuana is currently produced in one of two ways – under existing legal medical marijuana guidelines or in illegal circumstances. Growing marijuana takes places in a vast array of situations ranging from a few plants grown for personal use all the way to large-scale industrial size operations with 100’s of plants.

Thus regulating the growth of marijuana for a legal recreational market will not be simple. Many people are very attached to their small-scale gardens and it would be difficult to impossible (as well as undesirable) to eliminate growing marijuana for personal use. At the same time it’s important not to turn the whole thing over to heavily capitalized large scale commercial producers whose main motivation is profit, especially since the range of available strains of marijuana has been the result of innovation by many small-scale growers. Thus, we need to ensure that the best practices in indoor, outdoor, personal, commercial production are preserved while ensuring that cannabis is produced in safe and clean facilities. We will also need to decide who is the appropriate authority for regulating growing operations: municipalities or provinces or some combination of both. Neither seem overly keen on this role so they will require some convincing.

Okay, if your head doesn’t hurt yet lets turn our attention to product controls. Product controls include issues like price, age limits, potency, permissible preparations (edibles, tinctures, etc.), quality control, and labeling and packaging requirements. Price is a key issue when it comes to meeting public health goals. Price can help shape sales and thus use of cannabis, so we want to ensure that pricing reflects what we’ve learned from alcohol – namely that alcohol consumption is sensitive to price and that price must in some way be related to potency. Related to price is taxation – at what point in the chain from seed to sale will cannabis be taxed and at what rate? And what preparations will cannabis regulations allow; plant materials, tinctures and oils, edibles? Right now Canada’s medical marijuana access program only allows for the distribution of plant material. Clearly this is a very limited approach given that the medical cannabis dispensaries have created a range of edible and other products that eliminate the necessity of smoking cannabis. We will also need to decide where we stand on potency: in other words will we put limits on how potent products can be, and given that there are over 100 cannabinoids, how will we decide which ones we want to measure and regulate.

Okay so I haven’t covered other essential issues like vendor controls, marketing and evaluation and monitoring but I think you get the picture. Regulation is by no means a simple matter, but it can be done. In fact, experience from legal recreational markets in Washington and Colorado will provide valuable insights that can inform Canada’s approach. And regulation has the potential to create conditions where cannabis production and use is a whole lot safer than the current approach – prohibition.

[Curtman]

Speaking of common sense drug policy....

Finally, a nation legalizes pot

$1:

(CNN) -- Today, Uruguay became the first nation to make recreational marijuana legal for adults and to regulate its production, distribution and sale.

In the year and a half since President Jose Mujica announced the proposal in June 2012 as part of a comprehensive package aimed at fighting crime and public insecurity, a strong coalition of LGBT, women's rights, health, student, environmental and human rights organizations joined forces with trade unions, doctors, musicians, lawyers, athletes, writers, actors and academics under the banner of Regulacion Responsable (Responsible Regulation) to support the initiative and created a lively public campaign in favor of the proposal.

People will have four ways to access marijuana: medical marijuana through the Ministry of Public Health, domestic cultivation of up to six plants, membership clubs similar to those found in Spain and licensed sale to adults in pharmacies. The bill was approved in the Chamber of Deputies in late July and passed in the Chamber of Senators today with 16 out of 29 votes.

Why marijuana, why now and why Uruguay? The following three simple reasons have a lot to do with today's outcome:

Because it's the smart thing to do.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity, and Uruguay knows this. For 40 years, marijuana prohibition simply hasn't worked. Billions of dollars have been spent on repression, but marijuana use has only gone up -- along with the number of lives lost to failed policies.

The tens of thousands who have died in Mexico's drug war -- estimates in 2012 ranged from 60,000 to 70,000 over six years -- Central America's globally high homicide rates and the United States' racially driven mass incarceration are but a few examples of the human cost of the war on drugs. But rather than closing their eyes to the continuing problem of drug abuse and drug trafficking, Uruguay's leaders have chosen responsible regulation of an existing reality.

Because the winds are changing, and they're starting to blow in that direction.

In recent years, debate and political will for an overhaul in drug policy has gained unprecedented momentum throughout the U.S., Latin America and elsewhere.

In 2011, Kofi Annan, Paul Volcker and Richard Branson joined former Presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and other distinguished members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy in saying the time had come to "break the taboo" on exploring alternatives to the failed war on drugs and to "encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs," especially marijuana.

More recently, Presidents Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia and Otto Perez Molina in Guatemala have joined these calls for reform. In May, the Organization of American States produced a report, commissioned by heads of state of the region, that included marijuana legalization as a likely policy alternative for the coming years.

In November 2012, the states of Colorado and Washington approved the legal regulation of marijuana. In August, the White House announced that the federal government will not interfere with state marijuana laws -- as long as a number of stipulations are adhered to, such as preventing distribution to minors.

By approving this measure, Uruguay has taken the broad regional discussion on alternatives to drug prohibition one step further, representing a concrete advance in line with growing anti-drug war rhetoric in Latin America and throughout the world.
Because Uruguay is used to doing exceptional things.

You might hear "Uruguay" and think of football, yerba mate, beef, tango or, now, marijuana. But this tiny country of just over 3 million people has a history of remarkable political reforms and a strong human rights ethos.

Just last year, Uruguay legalized same-sex marriage and abortion. It has long been at the forefront of progressive policies, being one of the first nations in the region to grant divorce rights for women in 1912, instituting the eight-hour workday in 1915 and including women's right to vote in its Constitution in 1917. It has never criminalized prostitution and has legally regulated it since 2002. In 2009, Uruguay granted adoption rights for same-sex couples and the legal right to choose one's own gender identity.

This also comes from a country where the church and state have been officially separated since 1917.

It's a country where the president, 78-year-old former Tupamaro guerrilla Mujica, lives an austere lifestyle after having spent 14 years as a political prisoner during Uruguay's dictatorship, 10 of them in solitary confinement. He donates 90% of his salary to charity, shuns the presidential palace and chooses instead to remain on his farm with his wife, also a former political prisoner, working to construct a more fair, more inclusive Uruguay.

The consensus is there. Marijuana prohibition hasn't worked, and it's time to try an innovative, more compassionate and smarter approach. Let's hope more countries soon follow Uruguay's brave lead.

[Curtman]

Tories to consider softening marijuana laws

$1:

As the year ends, Justice Minister Peter MacKay is strongly hinting that steps to modernize Canada's marijuana laws might be just around the corner.

Fining pot smokers for possession of small amounts is one policy the government will likely consider.

"That doesn't mean decriminalizing or legalizing, but it does mean giving police options, for example, to issue fines in addition to any other sanctions, or as a substitute for other sanctions," MacKay told QMI Agency. "These are things that we are willing to look at in the new year, but there's been no decision taken."

This is the first time the Conservatives have mentioned the idea since Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the feds were looking "very carefully" at it in August.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says fining pot smokers may be just the ticket to give officers an option other than ignoring law-breakers or criminally charging them, setting up a long, expensive legal process.

The Tories may also be feeling the heat as Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau remains high in the polls, even after admitting to illegally smoking pot while serving as an MP and supporting full legalization of the drug.

MacKay couldn't resist taking a shot at Trudeau, saying the Grit pot policy is "a weak substitute for a lack of fiscal, economic or foreign policy."

Trudeau has also questioned the wisdom of imposing mandatory minimum prison terms for various crimes, a policy the Conservatives have embraced enthusiastically since forming a government in 2006.

MacKay says the government won't back down now.

"It sends a very strong message of deterrence, condemnation and public abhorrence of certain types of offences," he said. "And we're talking about predominantly serious, violent offences -- offences that involve sexual assaults on children; that involve distribution of drugs to children; that very much offend Canadian values."

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) predicted the prison population would explode to almost 19,000 federal inmates this year because of the Tories' new mandatory minimums on repeat offenders.

That prediction never materialized.

The latest CSC head count actually found around 15,000 federal inmates.

MacKay says he doesn't know why the original projections were so wrong, unless they only amounted to "political rhetoric or alarmist thinking."

The justice minister might also have to deal with Canada's prostitution laws in 2014.

On Friday, the Supreme Court will rule on three former hookers' constitutional challenge of Canada's prostitution laws.

While the feds wait for that, Conservative MP Joy Smith is pushing for an approach to prostitution similar to Sweden's -- the so-called Nordic model of putting johns in prison, while offering prostitutes an escape route.

MacKay says he's not sure that's the right approach.

"I'm not entirely convinced that the direction that has been attempted in other countries, and this Nordic model being one, is the right fit for Canada," he said. "We do believe that the current Criminal Code provisions are constitutionally sound, or we would not be making the arguments that we're making before the Supreme Court."

The feds have vigorously defended Canada's bans on brothels, living off the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of prostitution.

!

I guess it's no big surprise that the dumb on crimers are contemplating decriminalization and pretending it's not decriminalization.

But it's funny as heck.

Note the poll, which is consistent with every other poll on this subject within the last 2 years:



#1 choice: Tax & Regulate
#2 choice: Prohibition lite

The only answer that got less votes than continuing the failed war on drugs was the one for people who dont know or dont care.

[stratos]

Okay let’s say we make pot legal like we have with alcohol. Will we also impose the same penelties and fines for those caught operating a vehicle while under the influence of pot like we do for those who drink and drive?