Selling Legal Pot In L.C.B.O. Makes Alot Of Sense. Premier Says. NF

[Steve]

considering the UN is declassifying Cannabis as a drug, that shouldn't be an issue.

 

legalizing pot does not remove Canada's classification as a drug free country.

 

eat it. grow it. smoke it. buy it.

 

and here's a crazy idea....enjoy it.

 

it doesn't have to be medicine.

[jedimaster]

You know Steve, That view point is probably the first time I have hear anyone outright say something useful. If you want it and support it for recreationally use than go ahead and say so. Makes no difference to me if people get high. Having dealt with situations where people in my life needed it for medical use I find it very offensive when people put up an argument saying it should be legalized recreationally because its good for you or is needed for medical use or helps my third cousins brothers wife with her cancer. It already is and has been for a long time available and legal for medical use. Really who cares if someone smokes a joint after work or whatever. Just don't wrap the two arguments in one because recreational pot use has nothing to do with the medical benefits for pain killing and easing someone going through physical trauma.

 

It just doesn't jive to me when someone that has no medical need for it use medical use as a reason for them to be allowed to smoke pot.

 

 

 

If I had to guess what the legislation would be I would think along these lines.

 

1) Further ease up the access to grow for people with medical need. Perhaps a growing license of sorts.

2) Allow the sale of prepared pot treats (Brownies and such) for recreational use to be sold at XYZ retails/licensed places. Perhaps something similar to LCBO licensing.

3) Decriminalize the use of pot for recreation use

4) Stiffer fines for supplying Minors

 

I don't think that they will legalize the sale of marijuana in its raw form because as they have said a number of times they want to control and be able to tell people THC levels and that is very hard to do and would be cost prohibitive as individual leaves let alone plant to plant or crop to crop can vary greatly in THC levels. This is one of the battles and issues they had in the US when legalizing.

 

I mean I would liken it to going to buy alcohol without having percentages on the bottles. Its going to be controlled to some degree and likely they will take along brush strokes and try and span this out over several campaigns. With the economy going to sh1t under this gov they know it will be a dog fight to get in next time, stretching out a plan to legalize over the course of several terms is something that sounds like what they would do.

 

I doubt very much they will just black and white say pots legal its a free for all.

[Dutch01]

Jedi, you make a number of good points here. I'm a recreational user, I make no claim to have a medical need. I do agree some people use medical marijuana as an excuse for recreational use.

 

Initially, when there really was no medical access, it was a legitimate cause. The legalization lobby saw this as a foot in the door and jumped on board. This worked for them, and medical access softened a lot of people's opinion on the issue. I never got a license because I believe that would be conceding a choice to the government that I believe is mine alone to make. I don't accept that anyone else has the right to tell me I can't use weed, just as I don't have the right to tell them what to eat or drink (or smoke). So in the end I agree with you that people who want to smoke recreationally should just say so.

 

I think there is no question flowers (dried marijuana) will be legalized. It's the easiest to prepare and most commonly used form of cannabis. I don't think THC content labeling will be required, but it will be easily accomplished if so. Mass Spectrometer testing would be feasible imo, and will only get cheaper as demand increases. Consider that the first time a human DNA genome was sequenced for a private individual it cost him $3 billion. Now it can be done for $3 thousand. The idea of spending $50 to test the thc content in a pound of weed that will sell for perhaps $3,000 or more retail would not be an undue hardship.

 

I think they will actually be tougher on edibles. I have some first hand experience with them and find dosage much more difficult to manage. I think they should focus on dosage control by limiting the maximum size of one serving to an industry agreed upon single dose size. For example, one cookie, candy or chocolate can only have up to 50mg of THC (I picked a random number, I'm not sure what it should actually be). If the user wants a higher dose, they can't buy a stronger or bigger cookie, they just have to eat two. This way a consumer can have some confidence that if they only eat one dose of any edible, they're not going to get royally messed up.

 

As for growing, they will likely be forced by the Supreme Court to allow growing for medical users. Since recreational legalization is voluntary by the liberals and not likely to be seen as a right to access issue by the Supreme Court, I do not see them allowing me to grow my own. I could easily grow a year's supply of top notch stuff for a couple bucks (after the initial equipment outlay). They'll never make tax revenue off that, so I don't see it happening.

 

You're probably right, it's not going to be a free-for-all, no matter what it looks like.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Dutch01

[muddler]

I have to agree with Jedi,

 

I've read a lot of articles and research papers on THC, and its pure form it seems beneficial. So much so that I wonder why the pharmaceutical companies haven't synthesised it and sold it in pill form.

 

It is the effects of smoking the weed that concerns me the most.Smoking is dangerous to your health, PERIOD, It took us almost a 100 years to figure out that smoking tobacco was deadly mostly because of the other deadly products in tobacco smoke.

 

Other facts in the following article at https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuanaconcern me.

 

my 2 cents......MUD

[GbayGiant]

I have to agree with Jedi,

 

I've read a lot of articles and research papers on THC, and its pure form it seems beneficial. So much so that I wonder why the pharmaceutical companies haven't synthesised it and sold it in pill form.

 

 

They certainly have ...sadly it can kill people in its synthetic form but that's ok. Pharma is allowed to kill the odd person here and there.

Not to mention it doesnt work the same because its not! Simply put.

 

Talking about Medical and Rec in the Same thread really doesnt help ...

but no one will understand that either.

Edited August 11, 2016 by GbayGiant

[GbayGiant]

Health Canada - Notice to the media - Government of Canada to make an announcement regarding Marijuana

OTTAWA, Aug. 11, 2016 /CNW/ - A statement will be issued today regarding marijuana regulations. Following the statement, Health Canada officials will hold a media briefing via teleconference to provide further detail and respond to questions.

Date
August 11, 2016

Time
2:00 PM (EDT)

Location

Teleconference Only
Local / toll-free (Canada/US) dial-in number(s):

613-960-7526 / 877-413-4814

Pass code: 9862308

 

SOURC

[fish_fishburn]

If they don't allow people to grow their own then nothing really changes that much. Prohibition will still exist and so will the black market. And Muddler, its been proven that smoking a joint is not the same as smoking a cigarette. Google Dr Taskin if my memory is correct.

[fish_fishburn]

Also everyone should be allowed access to get involved in this new industry. Including all poor people if they wish, not just rich white guys in fancy suits.

[AKRISONER]

Jedi, you make a number of good points here. I'm a recreational user, I make no claim to have a medical need. I do agree some people use medical marijuana as an excuse for recreational use.

 

Initially, when there really was no medical access, it was a legitimate cause. The legalization lobby saw this as a foot in the door and jumped on board. This worked for them, and medical access softened a lot of people's opinion on the issue. I never got a license because I believe that would be conceding a choice to the government that I believe is mine alone to make. I don't accept that anyone else has the right to tell me I can't use weed, just as I don't have the right to tell them what to eat or drink (or smoke). So in the end I agree with you that people who want to smoke recreationally should just say so.

 

I think there is no question flowers (dried marijuana) will be legalized. It's the easiest to prepare and most commonly used form of cannabis. I don't think THC content labeling will be required, but it will be easily accomplished if so. Mass Spectrometer testing would be feasible imo, and will only get cheaper as demand increases. Consider that the first time a human DNA genome was sequenced for a private individual it cost him $3 billion. Now it can be done for $3 thousand. The idea of spending $50 to test the thc content in a pound of weed that will sell for perhaps $3,000 or more retail would not be an undue hardship.

 

I think they will actually be tougher on edibles. I have some first hand experience with them and find dosage much more difficult to manage. I think they should focus on dosage control by limiting the maximum size of one serving to an industry agreed upon single dose size. For example, one cookie, candy or chocolate can only have up to 50mg of THC (I picked a random number, I'm not sure what it should actually be). If the user wants a higher dose, they can't buy a stronger or bigger cookie, they just have to eat two. This way a consumer can have some confidence that if they only eat one dose of any edible, they're not going to get royally messed up.

 

As for growing, they will likely be forced by the Supreme Court to allow growing for medical users. Since recreational legalization is voluntary by the liberals and not likely to be seen as a right to access issue by the Supreme Court, I do not see them allowing me to grow my own. I could easily grow a year's supply of top notch stuff for a couple bucks (after the initial equipment outlay). They'll never make tax revenue off that, so I don't see it happening.

 

You're probably right, it's not going to be a free-for-all, no matter what it looks like.

 

You can guarantee that with edibles the THC content will be limited to 10mg (im like 90% sure this is correct, feel free to correct me if i am wrong!)

 

In the legal states, i believe every single one has this same regulation implemented. To be honest its a total relief as past experience with homemade edibles 1. tasted terrible, and two were insanely potent to the point that half of a cookie had me on the verge of being uncomfortable.

 

I am certainly a very occaisional recreational user but am also a firm believer that too many people abuse substances including the herb, and thus like anything people will use its inherited positive aspects as a method of promoting its use. I think this is beyond stupid.

 

I would never ever promote the usage of weed to anyone unless in a medicinal sense. If you are a cancer patient, epileptic etc. The whole legalization movement though just seems like a bunch of chronic abusers looking for an excuse to get high. Its not much different than people going around saying everyone should eat mcdonalds all the time cause it tastes good.

 

Call a spade a spade. Let the people have their medicine that need it...my 90 year old grandmother was prescribed THC while undegoing chemo, Wake up folks the medical industry is already able to supply the stuff to the majority of people that need it. Dont give us a s0b (why is s0b being autocorrected...dude is a word lol i dont mean s-o) story because you are a pot head that needs to abuse weed to feel better about yourself.

 

regulate it so that children cant buy it, allow businesses to have success properly growing and managing it, dont hand it over to a lobby and government regulated monopoly, take the power out of the hands of organized crime, allow our police officers to spend more time and resources catching real criminals, and tax it so that we can build some schools and hospitals like they are doing in colorado and washington.

 

Unfortunately i dont believe that our government is not greedy enough to do all of these things, they want to make their friends rich like always. (Screw the LCBO for real)

Edited August 11, 2016 by AKRISONER

[Dutch01]

I have to agree with Jedi,

 

I've read a lot of articles and research papers on THC, and its pure form it seems beneficial. So much so that I wonder why the pharmaceutical companies haven't synthesised it and sold it in pill form.

 

It is the effects of smoking the weed that concerns me the most.Smoking is dangerous to your health, PERIOD, It took us almost a 100 years to figure out that smoking tobacco was deadly mostly because of the other deadly products in tobacco smoke.

 

Other facts in the following article at https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuanaconcern me.

 

my 2 cents......MUD

Gbay already addressed the synthetic question, but I'd like to add that THC is only one of many active components in MJ. There are other cannabinoid and terpenoids that work with THC in varying mixes depending on the strain in question. Most people who use Marinol (synthetic THC in isolation) find it to be ineffective, and in some cases it makes people sick. There's no need for synthetic anyways. There are many different ways to use MJ that don't require smoking.

 

Your link is a part of the problem. You're NOT getting straight facts from an organization whose raison d'etre is to tell you "drugs are bad, mmmmkay?". This organization is funded by the regime that is responsible for prohibition in the first place. They're not going to give you "both sides of the story".

 

One suggestion I have is to read about the studies done by Dr. Donald Tashkin (a Pulmonologist and Professor of Medicine at UCLA). This is good, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Dutch01

[muddler]

If they don't allow people to grow their own then nothing really changes that much. Prohibition will still exist and so will the black market. And Muddler, its been proven that smoking a joint is not the same as smoking a cigarette. Google Dr Taskin if my memory is correct.

Inhaling any kind of smoke CAN'T be good for anybody. It'snot nuclear science.

 

Mud

[Dutch01]

Inhaling any kind of smoke CAN'T be good for anybody. It'snot nuclear science.

 

Mud

Muddler, multiple people have referred you to Tashkins study, I suggest you do some Googling.

 

Your opinion is directly contradicted by a esteemed Pulmonoligist and Professor of Medicine at UCLA.

 

His study concluded that even long term use showed a statistically insignificant DECREASE in the prevalence of lung cancer among Marijuana users.

 

Also, there are many ways to use marijuana without smoking it.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Dutch01

[dave524]

Muddler, multiple people have referred you to Tashkins study, I suggest you do some Googling.

 

Your opinion is directly contradicted by a esteemed Pulmonoligist and Professor of Medicine at UCLA.

 

His study concluded that even long term use showed a statistically insignificant DECREASE in the prevalence of lung cancer among Marijuana users.

 

Also, there are many ways to use marijuana without smoking it.

 

COPD and Emphysema are no picnic either, what do the stats say about them?

[AKRISONER]

can we all agree that inhaling carbon is toxic? Seriously guys you cannot argue that smoking weed is not bad for you. Inhaling any kind of pollutants is.

 

If you burn a cucumber and inhale the carbon you are putting a toxic substance in your body.

[Dutch01]

 

COPD and Emphysema are no picnic either, what do the stats say about them?

Read Tashkin and find out.

 

I love that I can present a reference to widely accepted scientific finding that marijuana does not cause lung cancer, and what I get in response is "well what about this other thing over here?".

 

Yes, COPD and Emphysema are ugly. You can get that from burning any compound in the world and inhaling the fumes, and yet we haven't banned every compound in the world.

 

I can use marijuana every hour for an entire lifetime and have ZERO chance of getting COPD and Emphysema - marijuana does NOT have to be smoked.

 

Do you contribute time, money, or effort to trying to ban tobacco, vehicle exhaust, factory emissions and so on? All of those things contribute to COPD and Emphysema.

 

The fact is, it is irrelevant what marijuana does to my body, because it is my choice alone to use or not to use.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Dutch01

[Dutch01]

Also everyone should be allowed access to get involved in this new industry. Including all poor people if they wish, not just rich white guys in fancy suits.

That will never happen, sadly. Plenty of the current licensed providers can be traced back to connections within the government.

[AKRISONER]

I think we can all agree that we would love to see those that work in the agricultural sector (farmers) benefit from a change of law...

 

also this just in

 

They are going to allow patients to grow their own

 

http://www.cp24.com/lifestyle/health/health-canada-to-revamp-rules-for-patients-wanting-to-grow-pot-1.3024955

Edited August 11, 2016 by AKRISONER

[Dutch01]

I think we can all agree that we would love to see those that work in the agricultural sector (farmers) benefit from a change of law...

 

also this just in

 

They are going to allow patients to grow their own

 

http://www.cp24.com/lifestyle/health/health-canada-to-revamp-rules-for-patients-wanting-to-grow-pot-1.3024955

They aren't being magnanimous in doing so. The SOC told them they had to! Just sayin'

[GbayGiant]

They aren't being magnanimous in doing so. The SOC told them they had to! Just sayin'

They never had a choice in the matter.

MMAR are able to change their scripts.

It's now easier for kids with epilepsy and other illnesses to get life saving medicine they need, or legally grow it!!!!!

Edited August 11, 2016 by GbayGiant

[ehg]

Hopefully doctors and government figure this out. With chronic progressive MS and post surgery massive back pain i need the relief(almost wheelchair bound now). The concentrates(digestible oils) and volcano vaporizer only way. Prescribed percoset, baclofen don't work.

[GbayGiant]

Marijuana Advocates to DEA: Talk to the Hand

The Drug Enforcement Administration says marijuana lacks medical value. So why did the U.S. government file a patent for cannabis — specifying that the plant has multiple therapeutic benefits — as far back as 1999?

GOOGLE - GOOGLE.COM

That's what some medical marijuana advocates are asking after the DEA declined to loosen federal restrictions on cannabis last week.

To highlight the seeming contradiction, they're sharing photos of their hands featuring the patent number: 6,630,507.

FACEBOOK - FACEBOOK.COM

The patent "proved there was ample evidence to support the medicinal aspects of cannabis — decades of research," Amy Hilterbran, a medical marijuana advocate who started the trend, told ATTN:. "It proved that cannabis — cannabinoids — were medicinal and effective for numerous ailments, conditions, and that the plant was nontoxic, nonlethal."

"This one patent disqualified cannabis from even being on the Controlled Substances Act — on several levels," Hilterban added.

The patent was filed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1999. It was published four years later, and information included in the patent description shows that the federal agency has been aware of marijuana's antioxidant and neuroprotective properties for some time. Researchers found that ingredients in marijuana could be used to treat and prevent age-related, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases.

STOCKSY/HEIM - STOCKSY.COM

"The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia," an abstract of the patent states.

CNN chief medical corespondent Sanjay Gupta says the issue bothers him, too: "How can the government deny the benefits of medical marijuana even as it holds a patent for those very same benefits?" he asked in a 2014 editorial.

The question is all the more relevant today, after the DEA announced that it would not change marijuana's classification under federal law. It is to remain Schedule 1 — the strictest category of the Controlled Substances Act, designated for dangerous and addictive drugs with no medical value — in spite of growing evidence that marijuana is relatively safe and medically useful. Though the DEA acknowledges that cannabis is less dangerous than heroin and other Schedule 1 drugs, it justified its decision by arguing that the plant has no accepted medical

 

 

Marijuana Advocates to DEA: Talk to the Hand

The Drug Enforcement Administration says marijuana lacks medical value. So why did the U.S. government file a patent for cannabis — specifying that the plant has multiple therapeutic benefits — as far back as 1999?

GOOGLE - GOOGLE.COM

That's what some medical marijuana advocates are asking after the DEA declined to loosen federal restrictions on cannabis last week.

To highlight the seeming contradiction, they're sharing photos of their hands featuring the patent number: 6,630,507.

FACEBOOK - FACEBOOK.COM

The patent "proved there was ample evidence to support the medicinal aspects of cannabis — decades of research," Amy Hilterbran, a medical marijuana advocate who started the trend, told ATTN:. "It proved that cannabis — cannabinoids — were medicinal and effective for numerous ailments, conditions, and that the plant was nontoxic, nonlethal."

"This one patent disqualified cannabis from even being on the Controlled Substances Act — on several levels," Hilterban added.

The patent was filed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1999. It was published four years later, and information included in the patent description shows that the federal agency has been aware of marijuana's antioxidant and neuroprotective properties for some time. Researchers found that ingredients in marijuana could be used to treat and prevent age-related, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases.

STOCKSY/HEIM - STOCKSY.COM

"The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia," an abstract of the patent states.

CNN chief medical corespondent Sanjay Gupta says the issue bothers him, too: "How can the government deny the benefits of medical marijuana even as it holds a patent for those very same benefits?" he asked in a 2014 editorial.

The question is all the more relevant today, after the DEA announced that it would not change marijuana's classification under federal law. It is to remain Schedule 1 — the strictest category of the Controlled Substances Act, designated for dangerous and addictive drugs with no medical value — in spite of growing evidence that marijuana is relatively safe and medically useful. Though the DEA acknowledges that cannabis is less dangerous than heroin and other Schedule 1 drugs, it justified its decision by arguing that the plant has no accepted medical use.

RELATED: Why We Should Demand That Congress Reschedule Marijuana

Edited August 16, 2016 by GbayGiant

[GbayGiant]

everyone can grow

no selling in places who sell alcohol.

best meds going

[AKRISONER]

Big news

 

http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/task-force-marijuana-groupe-etude/framework-cadre/index-eng.php?src=mj_task_force_16&medium=banner_en&content=&campaign=carousel_health_theme

[Dara]

everyone can grow

no selling in places who sell alcohol.

best meds going

 

 

Kathleen is gunna freak :clapping:

[jimmer]

Way too much time and effort going into this, I believe it is a tactical distraction. Those who need it know how to get it already.