# Legal Pot for Canada (and the taxes from it)



## Stoker (14 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're taxing the new legal weed. Sounds like a great place to find $5B to bring us up to a respectable budget.



Not that much I think. The intention is to make it affordable so people won't turn to the black market. Hell you have to be 19 for a drink but 18 to get high.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Not that much I think. The intention is to make it affordable so people won't turn to the black market. Hell you have to be 19 for a drink but 18 to get high.



The age is not set in the legislation - age will be set by each province and territory separately


----------



## Stoker (14 Apr 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The age is not set in the legislation - age will be set by each province and territory separately



Interesting, hopefully not less than 19 then.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Interesting, hopefully not less than 19 then.



If it is tied or matched to the Provincial Liquor Legislations on age limits, then you may see some provinces legislating for 18 years of age.


----------



## McG (14 Apr 2017)

I would have liked to see the federal legislation set a minimum age from which provinces could establish their own older thresholds.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I would have liked to see the federal legislation set a minimum age from which provinces could establish their own older thresholds.



There have been medical studies that could justify that, if the Government would find such legislation necessary.  I, however, feel that the Liberal Government will ignore medical research and go for the "votes" instead.


----------



## trooper142 (14 Apr 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The age is not set in the legislation - age will be set by each province and territory separately



Not completely true.  The federal government set a minimum age of 18, so there is age in the legislation, just the room for each province to set a higher limit as they see fit.

I see this as allowing provinces to set the age as it does for alcohol, which I suspect will allow them to sell in their respective liquor distribution systems; but time will tell.

Overall, good first start, I look forward to seeing the amendments at committee!


----------



## trooper142 (14 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I would have liked to see the federal legislation set a minimum age from which provinces could establish their own older thresholds.



The legislation does state a minimum age of 18, and allowing for the provinces to have higher thresholds.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2017)

Part of the argument for legalization is to remove the criminal element from the equation.  There will always be criminal involvement, as long as 13 year old kids want to get high, so you're not really removing them, just changing their target demographic.


----------



## Stoker (14 Apr 2017)

Does this mean drug testing for the military is going away, as the drug stays in your system from 10 to 90 days depending on frequency unlike alcohol.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Does this mean drug testing for the military is going away, as the drug stays in your system from 10 to 90 days depending on frequency unlike alcohol.



I don't think so. I think there's scope in the NDA to proscribe marijuana, under the "not prescribed by a qualified medical provider" perspective.

I'm also not convinced that the "it's legal" or even the alcohol is legal argument is entirely valid, given how little we still know about the drug.


----------



## Stoker (14 Apr 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't think so. I think there's scope in the NDA to proscribe marijuana, under the "not prescribed by a qualified medical provider" perspective.



Interesting I have heard more than one conversation at work saying they will be using when the new laws come into affect.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Interesting I have heard more than one conversation at work saying they will be using when the new laws come into affect.



Interesting.  If they use the "alcohol is legal" argument, they seem to then be forgetting that alcohol is not tolerated in the work place.  Alcohol use while not in the work place is tolerated.  The same concept should then be applied by these folks.....Should it not?


----------



## Stoker (14 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting.  If they use the "alcohol is legal" argument, they seem to then be forgetting that alcohol is not tolerated in the work place.  Alcohol use while not in the work place is tolerated.  The same concept should then be applied by these folks.....Should it not?



When I say they will use, then I would assume at home just like having a drink. What about on ship alongside in a foreign port? There's all kinds of questions to be answered in regards to the military being allowed to use.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> What about on ship alongside in a foreign port?



In some countries, Japan for example, that could result in a long jail term.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2017)

You just know that there's going to be someone who forgets that possession is still illegal in many countries.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting.  If they use the "alcohol is legal" argument, they seem to then be forgetting that alcohol is not tolerated in the work place.  Alcohol use while not in the work place is tolerated.  The same concept should then be applied by these folks.....Should it not?



The using "alcohol is legal" argument is a red herring and distracts and diverts attention away from the discussion about marijuana and legalization.


----------



## medicineman (15 Apr 2017)

I'm waiting for what they're going to set as legal limits for intoxication - there are a couple states in the US that actually have legislated blood levels that define intoxication for driving,flying, etc.  Can't wait to see the looks on faces when they're pulled over for driving stoned.

MM


----------



## GAP (15 Apr 2017)

All the jibber-jabber aside....I think we as a society will rue the day this comes about....


----------



## Ludoc (15 Apr 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for what they're going to set as legal limits for intoxication - there are a couple states in the US that actually have legislated blood levels that define intoxication for driving,flying, etc.  Can't wait to see the looks on faces when they're pulled over for driving stoned.
> 
> MM


you may be interested in this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-impaired-driving-changes-1.4069889

From the article:


> Three new drug-related offences will be also be created for drivers who have consumed drugs within two hours of driving. A driver who is found to have two nanograms but less than five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood could face a maximum fine of up to $1,000 (THC is the primary psychoactive found in cannabis). A driver who has a blood level of more than five nanograms of THC, or has been drinking alcohol and smoking pot at the same time, will face a fine and the possibility of jail time. In more serious cases, a drug-impaired driver could face up to 10 years if convicted.


----------



## mariomike (15 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If it is tied or matched to the Provincial Liquor Legislations on age limits, then you may see some provinces legislating for 18 years of age.



I remember when the legal drinking age in Ontario was 21.

Was lowering it a "social improvement"? I wonder if the same question could apply to marijuana, if / when they make it legal?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The using "alcohol is legal" argument is a red herring and distracts and diverts attention away from the discussion about marijuana and legalization.



It is one argument that those advocating legalization of marijuana always pull out, red herring or not.  They want to equate the legalization of marijuana to a commonly accepted substance that is already legal.  They figure a precedence has already been made with alcohol, and should apply just as equally to marijuana.  They will not recognize this as being "apples and oranges".

They will also reject or ignore any medical studies that discuss the damage caused to brain development before the ages of 21, and any studies that cover cases of paranoia and schizophrenia.  Their focus is solely on the beneficial aspects of the marijuana, ignoring any harmful consequences that could occur.  

With the passage of the legislation to legalize marijuana, I can foresee a rush by many who currently do not indulge, to experiment with it out of curiosity.  The first few months should prove interesting on supply and demand.


----------



## Flavus101 (15 Apr 2017)

I am not a fan of setting the legal age for the use of substances above the age you legally become an adult and can vote. The idea that the state views you as being mature enough to be able to vote and help change the direction of the country, yet not mature enough to make a personal decision seems backwards.

The further we keep pushing back the age where adults become responsible for their own choices the longer we have adult children who will never take responsibility for their actions/choices. This is a massive problem in universities and colleges. Compare the average dude two years after they started working full-time right out of high school and the average dude who is in second year at university. I think you'll find some seriously lacking character qualities in the university guy (not saying there won't be any in the other young full-time worker).


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> I am not a fan of setting the legal age for the use of substances above the age you legally become an adult and can vote. The idea that the state views you as being mature enough to be able to vote and help change the direction of the country, yet not mature enough to make a personal decision seems backwards.
> 
> The further we keep pushing back the age where adults become responsible for their own choices the longer we have adult children who will never take responsibility for their actions/choices. This is a massive problem in universities and colleges. Compare the average dude two years after they started working full-time right out of high school and the average dude who is in second year at university. I think you'll find some seriously lacking character qualities in the university guy (not saying there won't be any in the other young full-time worker).



So we should totally ignore the fact that scientific research has found that the human brain is still in a state of development into the early 20's, just because we have decided that a person legally becomes an "adult" at an earlier age?


----------



## QV (15 Apr 2017)

Well George by that argument we should bump the voting age higher, after all voting is a very important decision and we wouldn't want people without a fully developed brain to contribute to such an important decision.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So we should totally ignore the fact that scientific research has found that the human brain is still in a state of development into the early 20's, just because we have decided that a person legally becomes an "adult" at an earlier age?



Why not?  We allow these developing brains to make many choices at that age.  To marry, have children, use other substances that also are damaging if misuses (alcohol), kill another human being if required by circumstance (military or security service such as police) or sacrifice oneself for the good of others, vote in general elections etc, etc, etc.  All of the above choices have consequences to the brain that acts upon the decisions it makes.  If they're going to do it and use it, they're going to do it and use it regardless of how many studies say this or that.  At least this way, the government can perhaps have some input into how they use it and therefore possibly mitigate the ill effects of it's use (buying from criminal organizations, which is detrimental to society as a whole)  Treat them like children and they'll act as such.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

QV said:
			
		

> Well George by that argument we should bump the voting age higher, after all voting is a very important decision and we wouldn't want people without a fully developed brain to contribute to such an important decision.



Not really.  Voting age has nothing to do with the age by which one can legally use various substances such as alcohol or marijuana.  Decision making (without drugs) and numbing the brain through drugs (although a decision) are two different things.   ;D

(OK...Some voters do exercise their right to vote while drunk or stoned...That may explain the state we are in today.)

jollyjacktar

We have different ages already by which one is restricted or permitted to carry out various activities.  The voting age is consistent across the country.  The legal age regulating whether one can drive an automobile or drink alcohol varies province to province.  The regulations for the legal use of marijuana can just as easily vary from province to province as well.  That is all up to future legislation, Federally and Provincially.  This discussion is just a means to bring up whatever factors we may see being considered in future legislation; wide open to the imagination.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

With current NO SMOKING laws in effect and the current clamp down on Hooka lounges across the country, what will we see in the near future?  Will Hooka Lounges become exempt the NO SMOKING laws and permitted to offer the use of marijuana for smoking?  

One example from Vancouver (Ottawa is seeing similar cases):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-hookah-lounge-owners-wont-give-into-indoor-smoking-law/article25715978/


----------



## Stoker (15 Apr 2017)

I would have preferred that the age to partake was set at 21, and not to be used in public. Like some have already said the pro cannabis people will ignore everything negative about cannabis use and that anything negative is government or big pharma. Some even advocate that it doesn't affect driving after using and brag about it. Like it or not its coming and in a big way I think, I also believe it will turn out to be a train wreak of epic proportions.


----------



## kratz (15 Apr 2017)

I look at the "big picture"...and see the fall of modern Rome.




			
				GAP said:
			
		

> All the jibber-jabber aside....I think we as a society will rue the day this comes about....


----------



## medicineman (15 Apr 2017)

Ludoc said:
			
		

> you may be interested in this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-impaired-driving-changes-1.4069889
> 
> From the article:



Thanks for that...I was listening to a medical podcast a few weeks ago about just this thing.  There have been some surprised people in the US already.

The other issue is going to be dope/to drive times, since THC doesn't leave the body in as predicable a fashion as ethanol does...should be interesting to see who volunteers for those trials  :nod:

MM


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2017)

Excellnt resource I found.


----------



## mariomike (15 Apr 2017)

kratz said:
			
		

> I look at the "big picture"...and see the fall of modern Rome.



Years ago, someone told me that one day marijuana would be like liquor: packaged and taxed and sold right off the shelf.

I just laughed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would have preferred that the age to partake was set at 21, and not to be used in public. Like some have already said the pro cannabis people will ignore everything negative about cannabis use and that anything negative is government or big pharma. Some even advocate that it doesn't affect driving after using and brag about it. Like it or not its coming and in a big way I think, I also believe it will turn out to be a train wreak of epic proportions.



I thought we'd put away the pro/ con big brush awhile ago. Not all those that advocate as pro cannabis blame everyone and everything. No more that the anti zealots that see reefer madness everywhere, like some here. Not even willing to give it a chance. In true fashion, they don't like it so no one should have it. Just like, guns, booze, fast cars, etc. No different than a bunch of dried out twelve steppers that rant at everyone else's evil habits and how they have attained true enlightenment and are now perfect.

We've been doing well with the subject and it other threads. Let's try keep it that way by stopping the attacks and stick to the educational side of things.

I'm not getting wrapped up about Goodale's announcement. It's only a starting point. It won't even look liker the same thing when everyone sparks up on July 01, 2018.

Don't forget, at least here in Ontario, the liebrals haven't even got their Scrooge hands (like jazz hands but your hard earned dollars stick to them) on a plan yet. You can also expect a number of Charter challenges on 02 July, 2018.

This is far from being totally fucked up yet.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I thought we'd put away the pro/ con big brush awhile ago. Not all those that advocate as pro cannabis blame everyone and everything. No more that the anti zealots that see reefer madness everywhere, like some here. Not even willing to give it a chance. In true fashion, they don't like it so no one should have it. Just like, guns, booze, fast cars, etc. No different than a bunch of dried out twelve steppers that rant at everyone else's evil habits and how they have attained true enlightenment and are now perfect.
> 
> We've been doing well with the subject and it other threads. Let's try keep it that way by stopping the attacks and stick to the educational side of things.
> 
> ...



Finally a light in a sea of prohibitrionists!!!!

Well Said RC

People make out that Cannabis is deadlier than a MOAB bomb, when some vices that are legal. Coconuts have killed more people than Mary Jane, don't see a thread where people, here, are bleating about it.  

Dileas

Tess


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

recceguy.....I must agree; the Wynne Government will likely see this as an opportunity to create another "Cash Cow" to cover their mismanagement of the Ontario finances.


----------



## Stoker (15 Apr 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I thought we'd put away the pro/ con big brush awhile ago. Not all those that advocate as pro cannabis blame everyone and everything. No more that the anti zealots that see reefer madness everywhere, like some here. Not even willing to give it a chance. In true fashion, they don't like it so no one should have it. Just like, guns, booze, fast cars, etc. No different than a bunch of dried out twelve steppers that rant at everyone else's evil habits and how they have attained true enlightenment and are now perfect.
> 
> We've been doing well with the subject and it other threads. Let's try keep it that way by stopping the attacks and stick to the educational side of things.
> 
> ...



Just my opinion on the subject just like you have an opinion. What I have seen you take a common sense approach and I respect that. My opinion is based on conversations I have seen on Cannabis groups. Many Canadians don't want this legalization and it should been put to a referendum. Yes I'm against the legalization as I think there will be unintended consequences not yet seen. I know despite my attitude its going to happen and I have to deal with that. I just hope it does more good than harm.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Just my opinion on the subject just like you have an opinion. What I have seen you take a common sense approach and I respect that. My opinion is based on conversations I have seen on Cannabis groups. Many Canadians don't want this legalization and it should been put to a referendum. Yes I'm against the legalization as I think there will be unintended consequences not yet seen. I know despite my attitude its going to happen and I have to deal with that. I just hope it does more good than harm.



When you say many "Many Canadians don't want this legalization and it should been put to a referendum" can you provide a link to this please?



> "My opinion is based on conversations I have seen on Cannabis groups"



Really, what are the names of these groups, I would like to see what you have read.  I am not trying to be combative, but I do have a right to see where you have come up with your facts.  Otherwise, i think they are make believe or anecdotal.

Dileas

Tess


----------



## Stoker (15 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> When you say many "Many Canadians don't want this legalization and it should been put to a referendum" can you provide a link to this please?
> 
> Really, what are the names of these groups, I would like to see what you have read.  I am not trying to be combative, but I do have a right to see where you have come up with your facts.  Otherwise, i think they are make believe or anecdotal.
> 
> ...



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-wants-legal-marijuana-not-so-many-canadians-as-once-thought-survey-finds

Now there are other polls that are different however all have a sizable percentage that don't agree with legalization, but agree with decriminalization. I'm sure you'll come up with something to say that all Canadians love it.

As for the groups I joined a few including the one that you run, i'm also not trying to be combative either and not against legitimate medical use. I'm just against people making it out to be the harmless herb that you continually make it out to be. To say that more people has been hurt getting hit with coconuts than from Cannabis is not correct. I have personal experience in this.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

Let's return to contemplating what possible direction "Legalization" will go and what kind of regulatory acts will be put into place, Federally and Provincially.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

Let's return to contemplating what possible direction "Legalization" will go and what kind of regulatory acts will be put into place, Federally and Provincially.

For instance, what kind of changes will we see to this information that 48th regulator provided?




			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Excellnt resource I found.


----------



## Stoker (15 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's return to contemplating what possible direction "Legalization" will go and what kind of regulatory acts will be put into place, Federally and Provincially.



I think as Reeceguy has stated that the regulatory acts will morph overtime as lessons learned. I foresee tightening of the regulations if it starts to get out of hand but that's yet to be seen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2017)

No one is slagging anyone. I meant no attack on anyone. Chief Stoker and I simply have different veiwpoints.

I simply asked that  broad general statements not be used. Opinions are fine. Everyone has one. There's no debate on that. All that is being asked is that people keep overblown statements out of it and if you are stating something let's see where you got it.

Some are here to learn and discuss and we can still respect the other point of view.

Some, want to come here, unknowledgeable on the subject, don't like it and talk junk like they know something. We'll just ignore those people, because they are only here to disturb shit.

So, back on track everyone. This is a good discussion, let's keep it that way.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

Just for info, when looking at the offences provide by 48th regulator:



> In criminal law, you may often hear people talk about summary or indictable offences.  There is sometimes a distinction drawn between the two based on the seriousness of offence.  However, the main difference between these two types of offences are the mode of trial.
> 
> *Summary offences*
> 
> ...


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-wants-legal-marijuana-not-so-many-canadians-as-once-thought-survey-finds
> 
> Now there are other polls that are different however all have a sizable percentage that don't agree with legalization, but agree with decriminalization. I'm sure you'll come up with something to say that all Canadians love it.
> 
> As for the groups I joined a few including the one that you run, i'm also not trying to be combative either and not against legitimate medical use. I'm just against people making it out to be the harmless herb that you continually make it out to be. To say that more people has been hurt getting hit with coconuts than from Cannabis is not correct. I have personal experience in this.



Once again you slip in your bias of "It's my opinion.  What were these groups, because my group, Green Veterans Canada"  You were banned long ago.  What are the others.

As for coconut reference, neat you have personal expereince, I have personal experience that refutes yours.


Sorry for being slightly combative, but I find you use anecdotel evidence too much, and slag others to legimize your point of view.  Spare me the patronization of Medical use, as you made an effort to destroy any argument for it before.  Don't give me the RecceGuy epiphany, as that is a lame excuse aimed at dividing he an I.

Dileas

Tess


----------



## Stoker (15 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Once again you slip in your bias of "It's my opinion.  What were these groups, because my group, Green Veterans Canada"  You were banned long ago.  What are the others.
> 
> As for coconut reference, neat you have personal expereince, I have personal experience that refutes yours.
> 
> ...



Banning someone is not foolproof. I don't think i'll tell you what other groups i'm on as you may use it against me as you used my personal information already on here to ban me from your page. Its not "neat" that I have personal experience actually pretty tragic and don't feel you have to refute my experience. There's no slightly to your attacks on me either. I have to admit that you give more credit than deserved with your musings of me dividing anyone. Take a timeout and relax and lets get this discussion on track.


----------



## Stoker (15 Apr 2017)

So I was reading that taxing the sale of Cannabis may not be the cash cow originally thought and it is the intent to try and keep the price low. Compared to cigarettes and the price of alcohol, is the intent to try and drive out the black market so it doesn't go the way of illegal smokes which is a real problem?


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So I was reading that taxing the sale of Cannabis may not be the cash cow originally thought and it is the intent to try and keep the price low. Compared to cigarettes and the price of alcohol, is the intent to try and drive out the black market so it doesn't go the way of illegal smokes which is a real problem?



With that logic, might as well make heroin legal so we can stop drug cartels from controlling it. If that's the reasoning the government is using, they're more clueless than I thought.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Banning someone is not foolproof. I don't think i'll tell you what other groups i'm on as you may use it against me as you used my personal information already on here to ban me from your page. Its not "neat" that I have personal experience actually pretty tragic and don't feel you have to refute my experience. There's no slightly to your attacks on me either. I have to admit that you give more credit than deserved with your musings of me dividing anyone. Take a timeout and relax and lets get this discussion on track.




Uhuh,

Once again telling a lie, and using anecdotal mad up excuse to participate in this thread.  PFttt.

You were banned because you are a nuisance, and not searching for Peer Support, as the group indicated.  As for others, there are none.  So, once again you lie to make yourself a relevant factor.  This is not personal, this is the facts.  YOU should be admonished for trolling.  It's in the guidelines, eh.

dileas

tess


----------



## Stoker (15 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Uhuh,
> 
> Once again telling a lie, and using anecdotal mad up excuse to participate in this thread.  PFttt.
> 
> ...




Have a good evening and a Happy Easter.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So I was reading that taxing the sale of Cannabis may not be the cash cow originally thought and it is the intent to try and keep the price low. Compared to cigarettes and the price of alcohol, is the intent to try and drive out the black market so it doesn't go the way of illegal smokes which is a real problem?



Link please, would love to "Read" this study as well.

Dileas

Tess


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With that logic, might as well make heroin legal so we can stop drug cartels from controlling it. If that's the reasoning the government is using, they're more clueless than I thought.



After we, as a Nation, decide to legalize pot, making it cheaper than the black market stuff is the way to drive the black market out.

AFAIK, there is no plan to legalize heroin so your point is moot.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2017)

Let's move on with the subject of the thread. I'm sure everyone knows the rules and would like to get back to the subject.


----------



## Stoker (15 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With that logic, might as well make heroin legal so we can stop drug cartels from controlling it. If that's the reasoning the government is using, they're more clueless than I thought.



That did cross my mind. In fact I can for see illegal trafficking of cannabis much the same as regular tobacco if the price skyrockets. Probably from the same source as well. From what I have read it has the potential to provide the government lots of return however that assumes they drive out the black market and the government needs to provide a balance. Large scale growers no doubt want to maximize profit so keeping the price down may be difficult.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> After we, as a Nation, decide to legalize pot, making it cheaper than the black market stuff is the way to drive the black market out.
> 
> AFAIK, there is no plan to legalize heroin so your point is moot.


Why aren't we trying to make alcohol and tobacco cheaper than the black market then? Why legalize one recreational drug and not another? You control the content of the drug and maybe we stop all the overdoses. Heck, they're already talking about handing out free heroin in certain cases in Vancouver.

Also, did you vote to legalize pot? I'm willing to bet a bunch of the people that voted Liberal in the last election didn't even want it legalized, or didn't think it would happen. Canadians are split on the issue, and it's fairly evident even in this small slice of Canada that there's no concensus.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2017)

Because tobacco and alchool are two well established white market that is well accepted as the norm.  While there are black markets they are generally marginalized.

Pot, right now, is 100% black market.  You want the upcoming white market to overcome the black market and marginalize it. By taxing the hell out of the white market and making it less affordable than the black market, you won't convince any users to go to their regulat pusher.  Doing this, you're making sure the law fails.


----------



## MARS (15 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Link please, would love to "Read" this study as well.
> 
> Dileas
> 
> Tess



FFS, google "cannabis taxation studies".  Google broken in Toronto?!?

Lest you try and flame me....here some things for you to "read":

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/TaxFoundation_SR231.pdf

I know you are partial to pro-cannabis pubs, so here is one you should have seen already:

http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/02/10/colorado-pot-tax-44-million-recreational-taxes-2014/29510/

The taxation data is buried in this report, but you said you want to "read" it, so I will let you find it:

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa799.pdf

Broken down by county, no less:

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data

Or, just skip reading actual data and check out some opinion pieces:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/a-year-in-taxes-on-legal-weed-yet-to-yield-big-windfall-for-state/

When your google machine starts working again, you can find dozens of other data and opinions, even some that will suit your implicit bias, I am sure


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2017)

MARS said:
			
		

> FFS, google "cannabis taxation studies".  Google broken in Toronto?!?
> 
> Lest you try and flame me....here some things for you to "read":
> 
> ...




As cute as it was that you FFSed me, and told me to use google, you will notice your links refer to american statistics.  Being this is a thread about Canada, For F**k Sakes I was asking for Canadian links.  If you go and use your Google fu for that, Son, I would love to see them.  Especially the one your fellow naval chum, Chief Stoker talks about.

Dileas

Tess


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2017)

Let's quit the dick measuring on both sides of this discussion please.  If you cannot keep yourself civil, then keep yourself out of the discussion.

Cheers, 
The staff.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Let's quit the dick measuring on both sides of this discussion please.  If you cannot keep yourself civil, then keep yourself out of the discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> The staff.



Thank you.

Dileas

Tess


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So we should totally ignore the fact that scientific research has found that the human brain is still in a state of development into the early 20's, just because we have decided that a person legally becomes an "adult" at an earlier age?



So - I'm not really sure what your argument is here.  We have drawn arbitrary lines all over the place.  The legal age for alcohol is arbitrary.  After all, it's carcinogenic, and there is no safe level of it.  It causes many deaths.  The same is true of tobacco.  I would argue (as you seemed to argue otherwise in an earlier post) it matters very much the precedent created with those drugs.  I would also argue that marijuana is far more socially accepted than you understand.


----------



## GAP (16 Apr 2017)

Landlord group wants stricter limits on where Canadians can grow marijuana
Cannabis Act would let people grow up to 4 plants at home
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canada-legal-marijuana-growing-landlords-1.4071323
By Andrew Foote, CBC News Posted: Apr 15, 2017


----------



## McG (16 Apr 2017)

That seems like something that can/should be laid out in the lease.  It does not need to be spelled out in law


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Apr 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> Landlord group wants stricter limits on where Canadians can grow marijuana
> Cannabis Act would let people grow up to 4 plants at home
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canada-legal-marijuana-growing-landlords-1.4071323
> By Andrew Foote, CBC News Posted: Apr 15, 2017



And to what extent do house plants and Urban gardens get roped into this crazy concept.  Please, another attempt at prohibitionists trying to stall the rights of Canadians

dileas

tess


----------



## Stoker (16 Apr 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> Landlord group wants stricter limits on where Canadians can grow marijuana
> Cannabis Act would let people grow up to 4 plants at home
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canada-legal-marijuana-growing-landlords-1.4071323
> By Andrew Foote, CBC News Posted: Apr 15, 2017



Lots of landlords have had their investments ruined due to illegal production of cannabis, there's definitely concerns and it should be the landlord's choice if they want that sort of activity going on. Much the same as having pets or not or smoking. This is not like having a cactus in your house. House plants don't cause a stink, or have heat lamps or need to be processed. Four plants can also turn into more than four plants due to the additive nature of the drug as it is a narcotic.

The legalization should not trounce the rights of Canadians who do want to be exposed to it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Apr 2017)

And TRYING to get back on theme....

Does legalization mean it would come off of medical status in the coverage sense?


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Apr 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And TRYING to get back on theme....
> 
> Does legalization mean it would come off of medical status in the coverage sense?



For serving members, wouldn't it just change from a prescription-only drug to an over-the-counter drug? Both types are provided by the system free of charge, if prescribed.


----------



## Stoker (16 Apr 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> For serving members, wouldn't it just change from a prescription-only drug to an over-the-counter drug? Both types are provided by the system free of charge, if prescribed.



Good point, but I suspect we will have regulations coming soon on all of that. I foresee not being allowed to use while in regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Apr 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> For serving members, wouldn't it just change from a prescription-only drug to an over-the-counter drug? Both types are provided by the system free of charge, if prescribed.



I forget 'you guys' get everything... ;D

I meant that some folks say 'it'll be like alcohol or tobacco', however I'm pretty sure neither of those can be prescribed.  [I did say 'pretty sure', not 100%]


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And to what extent do house plants and Urban gardens get roped into this crazy concept.  Please, another attempt at prohibitionists trying to stall the rights of Canadians
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I can see a point on a Landlord having some say into what their tenants do inside their rental property.  Urban gardens, on the other hand, are not inside, so why would a Landlord have any say on plants outside?  (Although, I could not see anyone planting outdoors for fear of losing their plants.)  
Considering the size that one plant can grow to, it is not unreasonable for Landlords to have a major concern with the legal limit of four plants.
As MCG points out, it is something that has to be documented in the Lease.  Unfortunately, even with these restrictions in a Lease, in most places across Canada the tenants have more Rights than the Landlords, so it will be quite a court battle for the Landlord to evict a non-compliant tenant.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Apr 2017)

Plants will be limited to 1m height.  How many households have more than 4, 1 meter high non-canabis plants?


----------



## Stoker (16 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can see a point on a Landlord having some say into what their tenants do inside their rental property.  Urban gardens, on the other hand, are not inside, so why would a Landlord have any say on plants outside?  (Although, I could not see anyone planting outdoors for fear of losing their plants.)
> Considering the size that one plant can grow to, it is not unreasonable for Landlords to have a major concern with the legal limit of four plants.
> As MCG points out, it is something that has to be documented in the Lease.  Unfortunately, even with these restrictions in a Lease, in most places across Canada the tenants have more Rights than the Landlords, so it will be quite a court battle for the Landlord to evict a non-compliant tenant.



I would suspect in the legalization you would not be allowed to plant outdoors as it is a narcotic and could be stolen by under age youth or anyone else. As long as its put in the lease agreement, much like smoking or damage to the apartment grounds for eviction.


----------



## larry Strong (16 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Lots of landlords have had their investments ruined due to illegal production of cannabis,





Caused by grow ops growing 10's to 100's of plants at the time.....not four 1 meter high plants.....bit of a red herring...........


Cheers
Larry


----------



## larry Strong (16 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would suspect in the legalization you would not be allowed to plant outdoors as it is a narcotic and could be stolen by under age youth or anyone else. As long as its put in the lease agreement, much like smoking or damage to the apartment grounds for eviction.



People are already allowed to grow medicinal plants out side.......I agree a community garden would not be a good choice......if my experience with community gardens and growing veggies are any indication of what happens to plants.....


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Stoker (16 Apr 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> People are already allowed to grow medicinal plants out side.......I agree a community garden would not be a good choice......if my experience with community gardens and growing veggies are any indication of what happens to plants.....
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry



Cool I didn't know that. I wonder that because its set to be more common place that would change? I can see a person who say has a basement apartment for rent, rents it out and finds some weed pants in the garden from the tenants having a problem if they have teenage kids. Legal or not I believe we have an obligation to keep it away from youth. Doing an comparison to alcohol (liquor), people are not allowed to distill yet we see no problem growing it in a dwelling.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Apr 2017)

> ..... as it is a narcotic .....


While this has been mentioned a few times, marijuana is not a narcotic; it is pharmacologically distinct from the family of opium derivatives and synthetic narcotics.  It may seem like a minor semantic point, but some folks still cling to that old-fashioned 'truth and accuracy' thing.

Carry on   :argue:


----------



## Stoker (16 Apr 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While this has been mentioned a few times, marijuana is not a narcotic; it is pharmacologically distinct from the family of opium derivatives and synthetic narcotics.  It may seem like a minor semantic point, but some folks still cling to that old-fashioned 'truth and accuracy' thing.
> 
> Carry on   :argue:





Definition of narcotic from Websters dictionary

    a drug (as opium or morphine ) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions

    a drug (as marijuana or LSD ) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically (see physiological) addictive and narcotic or not

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcotic

That being said marijuana is sometimes lumped into narcotics. Regardless my point is that it certainly can affect you similar to a narcotic and it is habit forming to a certain extent.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I forget 'you guys' get everything... ;D
> 
> I meant that some folks say 'it'll be like alcohol or tobacco', however I'm pretty sure neither of those can be prescribed.  [I did say 'pretty sure', not 100%]



Don't know about tobacco, but alcohol can be prescribed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Apr 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't know about tobacco, but alcohol can be prescribed.



Don't know what I got but I now know the cure......


----------



## Journeyman (16 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Definition of narcotic from Websters dictionary
> a drug (as marijuana or LSD ) subject to restriction *similar* to that of addictive narcotics ....


Exactly.

I've generally found that when people misuse terms, it's because they either know no better or they're selling something. 

I believe that wrongly calling marijuana a narcotic is *just* as detrimental to informed discussion as suggesting that any anti-legalization opinion is ban-worthy trolling.  

However, not my circus -- not my clowns.  Y'all enjoy your 'discussion.'   



And I'll continue to rely on _CPS (Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties)_  rather than _Webster's_  in certain cases.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Definition of narcotic from Websters dictionary
> 
> a drug (as opium or morphine ) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions
> 
> ...



Being a prescription user, I'm not really concerned what they class it as. Opium poppies are natural, cannabis is natural. Both can be used in a natural state. The only differences I can see are that while opium and its derivatives morphine and heroin, being just two, will kill you and are highly addictive, cannabis is not highly addictive and by itself, will not kill you.

What it's classed as won't affect the governments plan to roll it out.

Pricewise, they'll have to keep the price low to undercut the dealer, who have product that can run comparable to what the LPs produce. Given that, the only difference in the product is price and procurement. Whoever controls that price is the winner. LPs are having trouble just supplying the medicinal side, often running out of many particular strains. Street dealers face the same thing when things go dry for them, but they don't have the overhead required to bring a product to market legally.

I really don't know how the government expects to make money off this, but it's going to be quite a ride between now and 010001ZJUL18, while they try sort it out. I can't wait to hear McWynnety's plan for Ontario.  ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Apr 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Bruce Monkhouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From a broad medical/pharmaceutical point, the legalization of cannabis may be an impetus (or at least the removal of some road blocks) for more "scientific" research into the medical efficacy of cannabis products generally and perhaps some more focused research about the properties of specific varieties of the weed.

I don't think you'll start seeing pot on the shelf at the local Shoppers Drug Mart anytime soon (or even soon after the passage of this legislation).  For one thing, that's not how the pharmaceutical industry works, and additionally, the sale of cannabis products would require the seller to have a license to specifically sell said products, just like alcoholic beverages.  The last time I was in picking up a prescription, I didn't see any single malts on the shelves.  Remember, this legislation aims to make cannabis legal for "recreational" use.

As for availability/use in the military, other than the section in the bill that proposes a specific change to the NDA there already exists specific regulations (i.e. QR&Os 19.04 and 19.18) that should deal with the inevitable arsehole who wants to have his weed available at his discretion or who attempts to use as a defence that he had/used it for "medical" reasons.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Apr 2017)

>Just like, guns, booze, fast cars, etc

Matches my philosophy.  Stop criminalizing things that too many people want to do.

All things in moderation.  No amount of "studies" will convince me the people I know who have health issues from heavy use of alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana are simply suffering from some sort of unidentifiable illness.  But each person may go to hell in his own way, etc.

>How many households have more than 4, 1 meter high non-canabis plants?

Prior to proscription in the 1920s, my great-grandparents had a very tall (well over the height of a person) hedge lining the drive (100 yds or so) from the road to the farmhouse.  Over-mature plants could become fashionable among landscapers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> I've generally found that when people misuse terms, it's because they either know no better or they're selling something.
> 
> ...



The opium plant and marijuana plant are not drugs or narcotics, they're plants.

Drugs are chemical compounds.  In the case of marijuana, the chemical compound is THC, in the Opium plant it's morphine and codeine.  Smoking the plants causes a reaction and the compounds are released from the plant.  

Alcohol is also a drug, but it's created from fermenting plants, etc... That allows the alcohol to synthesize.  Should we also ban wheat and barley now?  

This is what happens when you let politicians make definitions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I don't think you'll start seeing pot on the shelf at the local Shoppers Drug Mart anytime soon (or even soon after the passage of this legislation).  For one thing, that's not how the pharmaceutical industry works, and additionally, the sale of cannabis products would require the seller to have a license to specifically sell said products, just like alcoholic beverages.



Maybe not for recreational, but Shoppers' intends to apply to distribute medical cannabis by prescription.

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/shoppers-drug-mart-shows-budding-interest-in-selling-medical-pot/article28863445/

They aren't the only ones either.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (16 Apr 2017)

Personally I do agree with legalization of marijuana even though I don't care to use it (never have and likely never will, just doesn't appeal to me).

Some issues which might have slid over the heads of the politicians are things like for example is this going to be a cash based industry like the States? The reason I say that is because credit card companies in the States refuse to allow them to be used to purchase Marijuana. If it is a cash based industry, your going to run into the issues related to that (if government run, some of those issues will be reduced, but things like robberies of those locations could easily become popular). 

Other things such as the mental health side of things also tend to be ignored, a family member of mine ended up in the hospital for two months due to a marijuana induced psychosis. Essentially provided he doesn't consume marijuana he will be fine. One of the issues I can see with the legalization of it, is he could relapse because of the increased likelihood to be in contact with the substance (and no one can 100% say how much is required to trigger him back into the state he was in). Not saying this is a issue for everyone, as many people consume on a regular basis without issue, just that it is a issue for some.

I think overall this won't have a massive effect on our society. The reality is most people who want to consume it are doing so anyways. My only concern is where they are going to consume it, and is it going to effect others. In the States they did legalize it they found that basically 80% of the consumption was being done by 20% of the people, everyone else consuming was just having one every now and again say for a party or what have you. That 20% is the chronic users who are going to use whether it is legal or not. Might as well get some tax money out of it.


----------



## McG (16 Apr 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ... cannabis is not highly addictive and by itself, will not kill you.


A quick google search shows cannabis with an LD50 between 30 to 42 mg/kg.  Like just about everything in this world, it can kill "by itself".  Maybe that concentration is not practically achieved through smoking, but it would definitely come into the realm of the possible with things like shatter or wax.  Now, the federal legislation does not seem to open the door to these concentrates.  But, the idea that cannabis cannot kill is a false idea.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> A quick google search shows cannabis with an LD50 between 30 to 42 mg/kg.  Like just about everything in this world, it can kill "by itself".  Maybe that concentration is not practically achieved through smoking, but it would definitely come into the realm of the possible with things like shatter or wax.  Now, the federal legislation does not seem to open the door to these concentrates.  But, the idea that cannabis cannot kill is a false idea.



Hi MCG,

In your quick google search whichg shows cannabis with an LD50 between 30 to 42 mg/kg, did you find hard statistics that deaths or illness has occured?  I appreciate your research but your theory is based on a quick Google search.  Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?  Oterwise we are again relying on people's views based on quick google research, or anecdotal evidence and presenting it as if it is real hard scientific evidence and we must believe it because you posted it.

I appreciate a good discussion, and I am usually the pariah, because I promote Medical Cannabis.  What I also promote is the truth.

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Apr 2017)

Some links so you understand LD50, or lethal threshold.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose

In toxicology, the median lethal dose, LD50 (abbreviation for "lethal dose, 50%"), LC50 (lethal concentration, 50%) or LCt50 is a measure of the lethal dose of a toxin, radiation, or pathogen. The value of LD50 for a substance is the dose required to kill half the members of a tested population after a specified test duration. LD50 figures are frequently used as a general indicator of a substance's acute toxicity. A lower LD50 is indicative of increased toxicity.

LD50 of Cannabis | WeedPress

Marijuana Mythbusters » THC LD50

What is the lethal dose of marijuana? - The Drug Library

I can go on.  In essence you would need the purest form of extract (Some are pushing 90% THC) ingest the equivalent of your own body weight, stay awake the whole time, and maybe just maybe it will be lethal.  Frig me, gluttony can be fatal if you did exactly what I described.  Chugging water has killed people.  So this type of fearmongering is just that, fear mongering.

dileas

tess


----------



## brihard (16 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> A quick google search shows cannabis with an LD50 between 30 to 42 mg/kg.  Like just about everything in this world, it can kill "by itself".  Maybe that concentration is not practically achieved through smoking, but it would definitely come into the realm of the possible with things like shatter or wax.  Now, the federal legislation does not seem to open the door to these concentrates.  But, the idea that cannabis cannot kill is a false idea.



Diving in just because the numbers got me curious, so I dit a quick bit of  digging. 'LD50 for Cannabis' is flawed. Cannabis contains many different compounds. More pertinent would be the LD50 for THC and CBD, the psychoactive chemical compounds. Obviously there's not a ton of research on this, but I found one paper that tested oral LD50 for THC in rats and found it to be between 800 and 127 mg/kilo of THC. Now, some googling tells me that average THC in street legal colorado weed is somewhere in the 18%. range. We'll round up to 20% for rounder numbers.

So let's take the lower range of LD50 - 800mg / kg of body mass. 800mg of THC at 20% THD by mass would be 4g of marijuana per kilo. A pretty normal adult male sitting at around 80kg, you would have to eat no less than 320 grams of marijuana. For those of you who have ever seen a standard 30 gram bag of weed, you're talking about eating something along the lines of a small kitchen garbage bag full of weed, and that MIGHT kill you. Eat that much of anything and tell me how it goes for you though. Even assuming 100% THC concentration, you would need to eat 64 grams of pure THC for an 80 kilo man. I don't care who you are, that's a bad day.

I'm inclined to think that if you subjected yourself to eating even a tenth of that amount, you're probably gonna wish you were dead anyway.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I really don't know how the government expects to make money off this, but it's going to be quite a ride between now and 010001ZJUL18, while they try sort it out. I can't wait to hear McWynnety's plan for Ontario.  ;D



I suspect the Government will follow the same steps they did several decades ago when they ended Prohibition.  Sell at a reasonable rate that will be competitive to that which current dealers (Bootleggers of yore.) sell, all the while clamping down on them, and once the numbers of dealers dwindle to next to zero, they will slowly start implementing taxes on a product that is now regulated, sold in a setting that is familiar to the customer, and socially acceptable.  Once they have over 90% of the trade, they will continue to raise their taxes, and the customers will comply with them with no after thoughts.  It worked for alcohol.  It will likely work here as well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2017)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Personally I do agree with legalization of marijuana even though I don't care to use it (never have and likely never will, just doesn't appeal to me).
> 
> Some issues which might have slid over the heads of the politicians are things like for example is this going to be a cash based industry like the States? The reason I say that is because credit card companies in the States refuse to allow them to be used to purchase Marijuana. If it is a cash based industry, your going to run into the issues related to that (if government run, some of those issues will be reduced, but things like robberies of those locations could easily become popular).
> 
> ...



Sorry to hear about your relative. 

Like alcohol, there will always be those that react totally out of character with a particular substance, mentally and physically. The most adherent prophet of love and peace, can become an unruly, mean drunk.

Speaking of which, I would rather be surrounded by copacetic people doing cannabis, than in amongst a bunch of angry drunks.  [

Factual evidence is out there. The States are not the only people that investigate, experiment and come to conclusions about cannabis. Many studies have been done in Europe and elsewhere, where the stigma is not as great as in North America.

One none NA group that has been doing so for some time is Tikan-Olam http://www.tikun-olam.info/ in Israel. T-O is on the forefront of research into PTSD and is the supplier to the Israeli Military. Just about anything you want to know can be found there. Mind, you'll still have those that say it's junk science, but it's usually much more reliable info that the one countering it has and it's not anecdotal.


----------



## McG (16 Apr 2017)

Lot's of options out there in google land.  Try this one: http://www.rehabs.com/pro-talk-articles/fatal-marijuana-overdose-is-not-a-myth/



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> In essence you would need the purest form of extract (Some are pushing 90% THC) ingest the equivalent of your own body weight ...


The science does not support that conclusion.  42 mg/kg is not 1:1.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> ... this type of fearmongering is just that, fear mongering.


It is not fear mongering.  The factually incorrect claim was made that cannabis cannot kill.  It can kill.  Maybe this is not accidentally achievable through smoking, but the US does have documented deaths annually (see my link above) from edibles and concentrates.  There is a big difference fear mongering and acknowledging a hazard.  At the same time, denial of inconvenient facts does not give credibility to an argument.


----------



## Stoker (16 Apr 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I find the lack of research comes from the person that uses anecdotal evidence, as opposed to it being out there for everyone to find and use.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Just people using clearly scientific sources such as WeedPress and Marijuana Mythbusters. Do you agree much more research should be done on the pro's and cons or are you happy on whats already out there?


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Lot's of options out there in google land.  Try this one: http://www.rehabs.com/pro-talk-articles/fatal-marijuana-overdose-is-not-a-myth/
> The science does not support that conclusion.  42 mg/kg is not 1:1.
> It is not fear mongering.  The factually incorrect claim was made that cannabis cannot kill.  It can kill.  Maybe this is not accidentally achievable through smoking, but the US does have documented deaths annually (see my link above) from edibles and concentrates.  There is a big difference fear mongering and acknowledging a hazard.  At the same time, denial of inconvenient facts does not give credibility to an argument.



I guess pulling an obscure article, overides the evidence I have provided, and what Brian Har has as well.  Well, if that is not fearmongering then I don't know how else to convince you that you are using anything that sounds remotely like your argument, makes you correct.  None of us disagreed with you, we disgreed at the probability of it happening.  I think I, and Brian, gave examples on how yes it can kill you, but the chances of it happening are next to nil.

Sorry, using the words fatal, lethal, Kill, are just buzzwords.  Review to your facts, and realize you are way over the top.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Lot's of options out there in google land.  Try this one: http://www.rehabs.com/pro-talk-articles/fatal-marijuana-overdose-is-not-a-myth/
> The science does not support that conclusion.  42 mg/kg is not 1:1.
> It is not fear mongering.  The factually incorrect claim was made that cannabis cannot kill.  It can kill.  Maybe this is not accidentally achievable through smoking, but the US does have documented deaths annually (see my link above) from edibles and concentrates.  There is a big difference fear mongering and acknowledging a hazard.  At the same time, denial of inconvenient facts does not give credibility to an argument.



You're right. I made a general statement saying it wouldn't kill you. I made the statement in the same manner as if I had been talking about water. Water will kill you also and it's a lot easier to do than with cannabis. The amount of cannabis required, even of the most potent stuff, is just a highly improbable amount of cannabis to consume.

Now I'll toss another wrench. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

No amount of raw cannabis will kill you, except that you'll be shitting like a horse, which may do it, or you choke on it. Raw cannabis consists of THC-A and CBD-A. Both are *non* psychoactive and have no drug value. You can eat the shit all day and it would be no different than if you were out grazing on your lawn.

In order for cannabis to become a medicinal or psychoactive, it needs to be heated to about 240F, in order to convert the THC-A and CBD-A into psychoactive THC and medicinal CBD. Those are just a couple of the chemicals. Terpenes and other cannabinoids are also released with the heat. So if you want to attempt suicide with cannabis, you'll have to decarboxilate a garbage bag full of weed and try eat it all before you couch lock and fall asleep. I highly doubt that you could consume enough dab, wax or shatter, even if smoking it, before going off into la-la land.

So while I misspoke and told a fib, it was simply a natural response to say it won't kill you. Like water. Not impossible, just improbable.

This is why personal opinion and anecdotal evidence causes so much angst on the subject. When someone drills down and wants facts, personal opinion and anecdotal evidence just don't do it. The same way, there is going to be misunderstandings when people try parse someone's response down to the individual words and grammatical meaning.

So, unless you want to try attempt suicide by cannabis, the chances of death being caused by a narcotic effects on the body from cannabis are so slim as to be negligible. I suppose you could die, maybe, from an allergic reaction like from chocolate or nuts or something, but overdosing on THC is probably something that we'll have to contend with when pharma synthesizes it and put it in pill for (already done, btw) consumption. THC was first isolated in 1964 by two fellas, (again in Israel) at the Weizmann Institute of Science. It has since been synthesized into an oil or capsule form called Marinol (trade name) it's actual name is Dronabinol and is used to help cancer patients with chemo pain. The overdose information on medical sites imply that it would take a lot. https://www.rxwiki.com/marinol#overdose


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Apr 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're right. I made a general statement saying it wouldn't kill you. I made the statement in the same manner as if I had been talking about water. Water will kill you also and it's a lot easier to do than with cannabis. The amount of cannabis required, even of the most potent stuff, is just a highly improbable amount of cannabis to consume.
> 
> Now I'll toss another wrench. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
> 
> ...



BZ well said, Recceguy!!!!!

dileas

tess


----------

