Legal Pot for Canada (and the taxes from it)

[Fishbone Jones]

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.

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]

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.

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]

>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]

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. 

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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/

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.

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

BZ well said, Recceguy!!!!!

dileas

tess