Legal Pot for Canada (and the taxes from it)

[George Wallace]

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?

Excellnt resource I found.

 

[Stoker]

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]

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]

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

Summary offences are matters that are tried by a judge alone.  If you are charged with a summary offence you do not have the right to have a trial by jury.  Matters dealt with in this way usually proceed through the justice system much faster than matters dealt with on indictment.

Summary offences are usually less serious offences such as traffic offences and petty crime.   In NSW, summary offences have a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
For an offence to be a summary offence, the statute that creates the offence must clearly say that it can be dealt with summarily.  If it does not, then the offence is an indictable offence.

Indictable offences

Indictable offences require a trial by judge and jury.  If you are charged with an indictable offence and choose to plead ‘not guilty’, you are guaranteed the right to a trial by jury.

Hybrid offences

In many jurisdictions there are now what is sometimes referred to as hybrid offences.  These are indictable offences that allow the accused to choose whether to have the matter dealt with summarily.  That is, the accused can choose not to have a trial by jury and have the matter dealt with by a judge alone.

The benefits of having a matter dealt with summarily are that the matter may be resolved much faster than if you have a jury trial.  However, if you are charged with an offence that gives you this option, it is important that you get legal advice before deciding what is best for you.

 

[the 48th regulator]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Have a good evening and a Happy Easter.

 

[the 48th regulator]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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