It is a great day in Canada
-
Pot is finally legal.
[This](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45806255) BBC article discusses this at a high level (see what I did there?). Here's one quote from it making an argument I've been hearing for months:
Concerns remain, including about the readiness for police forces to tackle drug impaired driving.
How does this argument even make sense? Impaired driving has never been legal, and that is not changing today. So how has this been handled until now? Are they suggesting that police forces, all this time, have never been able to "tackle drug impaired driving"? In what manner are they "not ready" for something that's remaining the same?
-
You do it too.
How will I know what the problems are in Canada? You think they're actually going to report them? And admit their great experiment has been nothing but a massive failure?
-
Pot is finally legal.
Now tax it! Why not? They tax alcohol & tobacco, so why not tax (and regulate / control the purity of) drugs as well. In fact, make teh whole lot legal, and tax 'em. The TV adverts would be interesting ... :laugh: In all seriousness, making it legal improves the quality for users and massively reduces costs for police forces who spend far, far too much time dealing with minor possession charges. And no, I don't use drugs - and haven't for twenty or more years.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
[This](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45806255) BBC article discusses this at a high level (see what I did there?). Here's one quote from it making an argument I've been hearing for months:
Concerns remain, including about the readiness for police forces to tackle drug impaired driving.
How does this argument even make sense? Impaired driving has never been legal, and that is not changing today. So how has this been handled until now? Are they suggesting that police forces, all this time, have never been able to "tackle drug impaired driving"? In what manner are they "not ready" for something that's remaining the same?
They made the same argument here. I think they are afraid that people will think "since cannabis is legal, driving stoned is also legal".
-
How will I know what the problems are in Canada? You think they're actually going to report them? And admit their great experiment has been nothing but a massive failure?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
experiment
It is not an experiment.
-
Now tax it! Why not? They tax alcohol & tobacco, so why not tax (and regulate / control the purity of) drugs as well. In fact, make teh whole lot legal, and tax 'em. The TV adverts would be interesting ... :laugh: In all seriousness, making it legal improves the quality for users and massively reduces costs for police forces who spend far, far too much time dealing with minor possession charges. And no, I don't use drugs - and haven't for twenty or more years.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
Now tax it!
I think they are already doing that.
OriginalGriff wrote:
In all seriousness, making it legal improves the quality for users and massively reduces costs for police forces who spend far, far too much time dealing with minor possession charges.
That is the whole point. And they are selling it at half the cost of the black market, with verified quality.
-
What kind of problems? It is not like Cannabis did not exist before. And now people will stop ending with a criminal record just for having pot with them. Thinking about it, the societal problems will be less.
Personally, it's not so much that I'm in favor of legalizing its use as much as I'm in favor of decriminalizing it. I don't think it's in an 18-year old's interest to get a criminal record for simple possession, when said record automatically disqualifies people from many decent jobs no matter what. That hurts society in the long run, IMO. Trudeau's attempts to justify his position would be made a lot easier if only he'd make it public that it costs nearly $120K to keep someone in jail for a year in Canada. [This](https://torontosun.com/2014/03/18/federal-inmate-cost-soars-to-177gs-each-per-year/wcm/bad4ba76-735d-4b63-8a07-3f4f95e69fc4) is a Toronto Sun article from 4 years ago that came up with this amount. More recent articles put the figure even higher. How many years should a pot-head work at a poorly-paying job before that debt gets repaid in taxes?
-
They made the same argument here. I think they are afraid that people will think "since cannabis is legal, driving stoned is also legal".
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
experiment
It is not an experiment.
No, it's a ****ing disaster.
-
Now tax it! Why not? They tax alcohol & tobacco, so why not tax (and regulate / control the purity of) drugs as well. In fact, make teh whole lot legal, and tax 'em. The TV adverts would be interesting ... :laugh: In all seriousness, making it legal improves the quality for users and massively reduces costs for police forces who spend far, far too much time dealing with minor possession charges. And no, I don't use drugs - and haven't for twenty or more years.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
[This](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45806255) BBC article discusses this at a high level (see what I did there?). Here's one quote from it making an argument I've been hearing for months:
Concerns remain, including about the readiness for police forces to tackle drug impaired driving.
How does this argument even make sense? Impaired driving has never been legal, and that is not changing today. So how has this been handled until now? Are they suggesting that police forces, all this time, have never been able to "tackle drug impaired driving"? In what manner are they "not ready" for something that's remaining the same?
dandy72 wrote:
How does this argument even make sense?
The problem is one of proof. We have tests for how much alcohol is in someone's system and we can set legal limits, but not so for other drugs. In fact the UK has only recently started using road-side drug detection kits so the tech is getting there but it's nowhere near as easy as telling if someone is "too drunk" to drive.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Now tax it!
You think they're not already doing that? Current estimates place the figure at $400M in the first year alone.
Expect that to rise: tobacco duty receipts in the UK are around £9 billion per year (around 15 billion canadian dollars). We have around twice the population Canadia does, so even if you halve the tax receipts ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
dandy72 wrote:
How does this argument even make sense?
The problem is one of proof. We have tests for how much alcohol is in someone's system and we can set legal limits, but not so for other drugs. In fact the UK has only recently started using road-side drug detection kits so the tech is getting there but it's nowhere near as easy as telling if someone is "too drunk" to drive.
-
Expect that to rise: tobacco duty receipts in the UK are around £9 billion per year (around 15 billion canadian dollars). We have around twice the population Canadia does, so even if you halve the tax receipts ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
No, it's a ****ing disaster.
What disaster is it? I don't see any disaster? How about states where it is legal since many years? Any disaster there?
-
What disaster is it? I don't see any disaster? How about states where it is legal since many years? Any disaster there?
The evidence is all there if you care to go and look for it. Legalisation of drugs has never done anything but harm.
-
So again - since people have had cars and have been allowed on public roads, the police haven't been in a position to charge someone with impaired driving when they're high? I'm still not buying it. They have the means.
Laws need definition. How do you "define" if someone is impaired if you can't objectively measure or detect it? People driving while impaired from drugs *is* a big problem and the police often can't do anything about it. And of course it's not just the dope-heads driving while under the influence, their brains are so addled and useless they'll still be a danger even when not under the influence.
-
The evidence is all there if you care to go and look for it. Legalisation of drugs has never done anything but harm.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
The evidence is all there if you care to go and look for it.
Sorry, I don't see any. It is probably only in your head.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Legalisation of drugs has never done anything but harm.
Care to share examples? Don't show examples of people on drugs throwing up on the streets. We can see that in every country, legal or not. And remember, this is just pot. Other drugs are still illegal.
-
They were so mellow and relaxed, Canadian stereotype on steroids :) [let me find a link to it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QmRZ4j0uW4)
Shouldn't be stereotypes on weed?
-
Pot is finally legal.
I lived with someone who smoked skunk throughout the day from the moment they woke up to just before they went to sleep. I never once had the desire to take up the habit when I saw the effect it had on them. That said - there are apparently beneficial aspects for some medical conditions and it's probably a good thing that people who can benefit from it, as a medicine, will not need to visit their doctor or as in the case of the UK not have previously had access to it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
