GbayGiant

Polling: Liberal 32.5% (+0.7), Conservative 31.5% (+1.9), "why not, look who's there now.... "

First Paragraph.

Definitely lunch out of Balsam.

There's a long list of "pro anglers" who cheat. It's nothing new to the, sport?

By far, one of the best reads in quite a while on this site. And for all the right reasons too. Thanks.

what guide service ?

easy answer...

https://youtu.be/-tJXjt5D4zY

An 870 scatter gun is the way to go. Multi purpose!

Not many see or talk about the silent addictions our Governments allow/push. From Pharma to MacDonald brand.

idiot! ...who are you to judge?

In a statement on June 11, Canadian health minister Rona Ambrose reacted strongly to the Supreme Court ruling that medical cannabis should be available in all forms to patients using it for medical purposes. Not only is Ambrose “outraged”, she believes that it sends a message of normalization to Canadian youth and that there is no clear evidence on the efficacy of cannabis for medical purposes. But she’s wrong. It’s troubling that the health minister of Canada, a voice that is suppose to serve the public health interest of Canadians, still cannot admit that cannabis can be, and is, used for a variety of medical purposes. We should also be concerned that our health minister is having trouble with a decision made in the highest court of Canada. In a unanimous decision (7-0) effective immediately, the judges agreed that it was unreasonable to require users to smoke dried marijuana and that Canadians should not have to choose between their liberty and their health. Does that mean our constitutional rights simply don’t matter to Ambrose? Let’s not forget that the Harper government appointed seven of the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. It’s frightening that our health minister not only lacks understanding of Canadian’s constitutional rights, but that she outright refuses to become better educated about cannabis as a medicine. Instead, she’d rather sit with her eyes and ears closed reaffirming that “cannabis is not a medicine”! If that were me in Ambrose’s position, I’d want to see the research too. Part of the job description entails the promotion and protection of public health. Unfortunately, her opinion is not based on current evidence, but century-old “reefer madness” propaganda that is really out of touch with current science. In fact, there are many credible institutions in North America producing peer-reviewed studies on cannabis—from the science to the sociology—and even more when we look to international leaders in this type of research, such as Israel and Spain. Even many of the current producers licensed under the federal program have made a trip to Israel to see what types of innovations are happening there in the medical cannabis world. Kirk Tousaw, the lawyer responsible for winning this case, said in a recent CBC News interview that Ambrose should “go back to her desk, and get to work on crafting a reasonable set of regulations that will stand up to charter scrutiny, that’s her job”. And he’s right. In Canada, it seems the judicial system is the only real way to make meaningful change—the entire medical cannabis program was a right won in the courts. We can’t forget about the children, says Ambrose, arguing that medical access in other forms will make pot seem “normal” to them. What about seven-year-old Liam McKnight with Dravet syndrome, whose mother has been breaking the law for nearly two years to provide cannabis in oil form to her son to manage his seizures? Or three-year-old Gwenevere Repetski who relies on the oil to manage her epilepsy? Does the health minister of Canada believe these children should smoke their medicine, or that their parents should be criminalized for extracting cannabis into oil form? To deny the experience of many Canadians without any proper education certainly seems to have become commonplace for the Harper government. But then again, it’s not like the Harper government has done a great job preserving our constitutional rights lately. With this ruling, it will be interesting to see the long-term impact on the federal medical marijuana program. A large, unanswered question revolves around whether or not this decision leaves room for commercial production of extracts for licensed producers in Canada. As many have suggested, the real future in the medical cannabis world lies in the availability of extracts and derivatives, particularly for many patients who are unable, for various reasons, to convert the dried forms on their own. What I do know is that the landscape is changing fast, and Ambrose better get with the program, or get out. Jenna Valleriani is a PhD candidate at the Collaborative Program in Addiction Studies at the University of Toronto. Follow Valleriani on Twitter: @jennav5.

No one asked but if they did, you would be 100% wrong!

Monsanto hates this guy and for good reason. http://www.ewao.com/a/1-he-holds-the-patent-that-could-destroy-monsanto-and-change-the-world

France has announced a ban on over the counter sales of a brand of weedkiller from garden centres after the active ingredient was classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the UN. The UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate in March as "probably carcinogenic to humans", and is the active ingredient in Roundup. The weedkiller is used by amateur gardeners as well as farmers and is the foremost product of American biotechnology giant Mosanto. French Ecology Minister Segolene Royal told France 3 television on Sunday: "France must be on the offensive with regards to the banning of pesticides." "I have asked garden centres to stop putting Monsanto's Roundup on sale" in self-service aisles, she added. Glyphosate was introduced in the 1970s under the brand Roundup and is the most-produced weedkiller in the world, according to the IARC. The agency's evaluation of glyphosate saw "limited evidence" of a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as seen in studies in the United States, Sweden and Canada conducted among farm workers since 2001. Monsanto strongly contested the IARC classification, commenting that "relevant, scientific data was excluded from review." Monsanto said in a statement: "As consumers ourselves, safety is a priority for every person who works at Monsanto. "We want to be clear: All labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product. "In fact, every glyphosate-based herbicide on the market meets the rigorous standards set by regulatory and health authorities to protect human health." http://www.independe...r-10319877.html

"Good grief. What on earth has federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose been nibbling? Steroid-laced Alberta cheeseburgers? She certainly hasn’t been chowing down on soothing cannabis cookies. Her dyspeptic reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling this past week legalizing reefer brownies and Mary Jane tisanes raised more eyebrows than a whiff of skunk at a church picnic. It came across like a spasm of ‘roid rage. Or a bit of self-serving Conservative political posturing in the run-up to a federal election. “Frankly, I’m outraged,” Ambrose declared. “I’m outraged by the message that judges are sending that they think that they can approve a drug into a medicine without clear clinical scientific evidence and without safety reviews.” Cannabis “is not a drug … not a medicine,” she insisted. Well, not on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Reefer Madness-obsessed watch. Health Canada could make it an approved medicine, but won’t. The Tories are ideologically dead set against anyone using marijuana. While two in three Canadians want it legalized or decriminalized, the Tories are forever bashing Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for proposing to legalize. And they can’t bring themselves to decriminalize, as New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair proposes. But for all Ambrose’s sputtering, the Supremes weren’t trying to practice medicine without a licence by declaring marijuana a cure for what ails us. They were just upholding the law of the land. Medical use of marijuana for seriously ill people, while controversial, has been legal in Canada since 2001 after the courts ruled that cannabis has some “medicinal value” and can be of “therapeutic assistance.” It is commonly used to offer relief to those who suffer from cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, migraine, epilepsy, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. Ambrose’s own department, Health Canada, has licensed no fewer than 25 firms to grow the stuff. Some 50,000 Canadians use it, lawfully. And yes, Ottawa can claim its tax cut. But until now Health Canada rules effectively forced people to smoke medical marijuana. And that violated the Constitution by unreasonably interfering with “life, liberty and security of the person” in two ways, the court ruled: People who wanted to consume marijuana in, say, a cookie would face prison while a smoker would not. That’s patently unfair. And forcing people to smoke exposes them to cancer and bronchial infections. That’s just dumb. Rightly, the court found these rules both arbitrary and unhealthy. So brownies, cookies, teas and whatever other concoction ailing people can whip up in the kitchen blender are now on the menu. As they should be. Despite Ambrose’s wild assertion that the high court justices are branching out into the drug-approval business, this ruling gives the judicial nod to baking brownies for sick people, nothing more. The federal government, under Liberals and Tories alike, has long since given the nod to medicinal toking. This minister needs to chill out." Toronto Star

The Dutch know

The question I’m answering today is ‘how much marijuana does it take for someone to overdose?’ My friend is well aware that no one in recorded history has ever died from a marijuana overdose. But he wants to know if there is any amount of marijuana that someone could overdose from. According to a 1988 United States administrative law hearing: “7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana’s LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death. 8. At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response. 9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.” Even if someone is smoking marijuana concentrates or ‘dabs’ which can be 3-4 times more potent than their flower counterparts, that’s still hundreds of pounds of marijuana dabs within a 15 minute period. A person would pass out before they experienced a lethal dose level of marijuana. Something could harm the person if they fell while passing out resulting in death, but that’s different than the marijuana itself causing death. Some readers are probably wondering why the federal government fights so hard against marijuana research. Maybe it’s because every time they research marijuana they find out how wrong they are…

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2669296418/ Trial https://youtu.be/oEWm6ZeMqUg https://youtu.be/Tp9RnRKVkM8

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down an appeal by the federal government to maintain the nonsensical status quo with regards to medical marijuana. The rules had stipulated that medical marijuana could only be possessed and consumed in its dried form, which meant chronically ill users were essentially restricted to smoking it. This made no sense whatsoever; a terminal lung cancer patient with a license to use medical marijuana, for example, should not be limited to lighting up. Yet under Sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, the creation and consumption of medical marijuana in alternate forms — in tablets, ointments, in baked goods or extracts — was prohibited. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court called out the restriction for what it was: “arbitrary.” The Court ruled that the denial of legal alternative forms of consumption violated the guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by forcing ill users to choose between “a legal but inadequate treatment and an illegal but more effective choice.” Limiting people to smoking medical marijuana, the Court added, “subjects the person to the risk of cancer and bronchial infections associated with smoking dry marihuana.” This is just basic common sense: permitting the use of a substance but stipulating the specific way it must be used, especially when that method is arguably more physically harmful than all other ways, is simply asinine policy. Indeed, the government has not, and did not, offer a sound explanation as to why those who are licensed to possess and use medical marijuana should be forced to smoke it, rather than consume it in teas, baked goods, pills or extracts. So the Supreme Court ruled against it, and rightly so. This case dates back to 2009, when Owen Smith, a baker for the Cannabis Buyers Club of Canada, was arrested and charged after police found marijuana-infused cookies and oils in his Victoria apartment. Smith challenged the law and was acquitted at trial, and the decision was held up last summer at the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Court gave the federal government a year to change the law; it instead challenged the decision at the Supreme Court, which ended up supporting the trial judge’s conclusion. The decision should have a profound impact on the lives of Canadians suffering with chronic pain or disease, including the families of children with severe epileptic disorders. Last year, Postmedia reported on the story of six-year-old Liam McKnight, who suffered with epilepsy so severe he was experiencing dozens of seizures per day. Though Liam and his family had tried dozens of medications, none of them seemed to help. Then Liam’s mom gave him cannabis oil, and he was seizure-free after 10 days. Unfortunately, because of the rules on marijuana consumption, Health Canada effectively said the kindergartener, if continuing to legally take marijuana, would have to smoke it. That shouldn’t have to happen anymore. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decision is a win for families like Liam’s, and a win for common sense. Ill Canadians should not be told they can use marijuana and at the same time arbitrarily restricted as to the method of consumption. We’re glad the Supreme Court recognized that, even if the federal government did not. National Post

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2669307379/

cheap trades or cheap owner?

you should have taken pictures of him taking the hook out and releasing it