Dara Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 Thinking I just became a statistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 Thinking I just became a statistic Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crappieperchhunter Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 I heard stories about how some of them operate though, allowing anyone off the street to basically come in and buy. Selling prescriptions with a "doctor" over skype, etc. Some of them were pretty shady, borderline underground operations that needed to be reigned in a little bit. I think you hit the nail on the head. And shady hurts local business. The one in downtown Oshawa is attracting a lot of shady characters and I'm hearing many many stories about all the below the board business going on. I got no problem with Medical Mary Jane. Just do it right and lets move on. If I owned a business that was suffering because of my new neighbours next door you can bet I'd be complaining....and I'm sure that is what has fuelled this crack down. My wife works next door to the Oshawa pot stop. I get new stories of illegal activities pretty much weekly. It has not been set up properly and needs to be done right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 I think you hit the nail on the head. And shady hurts local business. The one in downtown Oshawa is attracting a lot of shady characters and I'm hearing many many stories about all the below the board business going on. I got no problem with Medical Mary Jane. Just do it right and lets move on. If I owned a business that was suffering because of my new neighbours next door you can bet I'd be complaining....and I'm sure that is what has fuelled this crack down. My wife works next door to the Oshawa pot stop. I get new stories of illegal activities pretty much weekly. It has not been set up properly and needs to be done right. Where is this Oshawa pot shop you refer to again? I ask purely out of scientific interest of course ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKRISONER Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 Are you kidding. It's not Tory. It's Kathleen. Think. lCBO control being the operative this remember people the LCBO and beer store are not owned by the government like they like us to believe. They are corporations that have lots and lots and lots of money. I work in the recycling industry and guess who the only company in all of ontario that doesnt have to pay recycling stewardship fees is? You guessed it, The beer store. "but they have a return system" you might say, well every single other corporation in ontario that has a return system still has to report the volumes of material that they lose...the beer store doesnt though. Its written into the Waste Diversion Act of Ontario. Now thats lobbying power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bacon Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 remember people the LCBO and beer store are not owned by the government like they like us to believe. They are corporations that have lots and lots and lots of money. The LCBO is owned by the government. The beer store is owned by the brewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave524 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) I work in the recycling industry and guess who the only company in all of ontario that doesnt have to pay recycling stewardship fees is? You guessed it, The beer store. "but they have a return system" you might say, well every single other corporation in ontario that has a return system still has to report the volumes of material that they lose...the beer store doesnt though. Its written into the Waste Diversion Act of Ontario. Now thats lobbying power. There is a difference with the beer store, they actually do not recycle the empties but they reuse them. Well except for the LCBO bottles that we now have to take there, that is a giant waste of resources because they are recycled not reused and could more easily go in the blue box without the bureaucracy of charging a token deposit and then refunding it. Edited May 31, 2016 by dave524 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 There is a difference with the beer store, they actually do not recycle the empties but they reuse them. Well except for the LCBO bottles that we now have to take there, that is a giant waste of resources because they are recycled not reused and could more easily go in the blue box without the bureaucracy of charging a taken deposit and then refunding it. Kathleen just thinks that if you drink then you don't recycle unless there is a buck in it for you liquor CONTROL board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headhunter Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 There is a difference with the beer store, they actually do not recycle the empties but they reuse them. Well except for the LCBO bottles that we now have to take there, that is a giant waste of resources because they are recycled not reused and could more easily go in the blue box without the bureaucracy of charging a taken deposit and then refunding it. And the city or jurisdiction that you live in loses money because they are not getting paid for the glass waste they would collect. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave524 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 And the city or jurisdiction that you live in loses money because they are not getting paid for the glass waste they would collect. HH same with the beer cans, we could just blue box them too, and there is real money in scrap aluminum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKRISONER Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 bingo i work for stewardship ontario, we operate on behalf of industry to assist them in fulfilling their obligations to report the quantities of packaging that they supply to the market. Contrary to popular belief, your taxes only pay for 50% of the costs associated with your Blue Box recycling, industry brand owners i.e. coca cola and walmart pay for the other half (soon to be 100%) I can tell you right now, that unless your liquor bottle gets picked up by a garbage picker, it is ending up in a big pile of glass and that deposit is lost forever. whats more of a joke is that the beer store (a government protected monopoly) does not have to pay any of the recycling costs associated with the glass that they put into the market. This means that companys that produce glass packaging are picking up the beer stores bill on their behalf simply because a lobby got them exempt from the waste diversion acts product stewardship section. Also contrary to popular belief, glass is not very recyclable at all. In fact its one of the crappiest recycling commodities of all. It is really rough on sorting machinery and destroys concrete floors inside of the recycling facilities. Put it this way, you might think that everyone takes their empties back, but i can assure you that 90% of people that live in the city without a car (a huge portion of ontario's population) does not return their empties. On last check return rates are somewhere in the 70% range. 30% is ending up in the trash or going in the blue bin or simply being broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) I like the idea of the producer paying 100% of the future recycling cost up front. It would force producers to change their packaging, and save government the cost of recycling. For all goods, not just bottles. The amount of packing on new stuff today is ridiculous. Edited May 31, 2016 by Dutch01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esoxansteel Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 Where is this Oshawa pot shop you refer to again? I ask purely out of scientific interest of course Theres 2 of them now, one on Simcoe, and one i believe on hwy 2 in a strip mall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manitoubass2 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 I like the idea of the producer paying 100% of the future recycling cost up front. It would force producers to change their packaging, and save government the cost of recycling. For all goods, not just bottles. The amount of packing on new stuff today is ridiculous. Yes it is(the packaging) If you have kids/grandkids holy moly. Takes 15 minutes to open a friggen package. And whomever ties those knots on kids toys obviously hates everyone on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 The producer paying for packaging? My job is to set prices for what the company produces. We do not pay for any recycling or environmental costs. Example We do a lot of shipping and the shipping bills come with a fuel surcharge. I do not just charge for shipping and eat the fuel surcharge. I bill for it and also put a markup on it. If there is an environmental charge, it gets marked up and charged for. The customer pays it, not the company. And we make a profit on it. If these charges get too high, people will stop buying the product, (if at all possible, can't do that with electricity). If that happens the company closes and people that work there are out of work. Do not think for a minute that the company pays for anything. They just hide it for the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) Sure, let's let corporatism ruin the world we live in...... People are too stupid to make the right choices for our own good. If you want to make a profit, you should shoulder all the related cost. Why should my taxes pay for a producers choice of packaging? Edited June 1, 2016 by Dutch01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Sure, let's let corporatism ruin the world we live in...... People are too stupid to make the right choices for our own good. If you want to make a profit, you should shoulder all the related cost. Why should my taxes pay for a producers choice of packaging? Your taxes shouldn't pay for packaging. People should pay for recycling charges on packaging. But the people should pay out of pocket for it. That way they have a choice. Buy the fancy package and pay to recycle it, or go to the company that uses a paper bag and pay a bunch less in recycling charges. Don't hide all the charges in legislation forcing the company to pay and we don't see it to make our own choices When a company starts losing sales because of excessive packaging, then they will change, not when the government makes them pay a fee and they just pass it on and nobody knows why prices went up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Your taxes shouldn't pay for packaging. People should pay for recycling charges on packaging. But the people should pay out of pocket for it. That way they have a choice. Buy the fancy package and pay to recycle it, or go to the company that uses a paper bag and pay a bunch less in recycling charges. Don't hide all the charges in legislation forcing the company to pay and we don't see it to make our own choices When a company starts losing sales because of excessive packaging, then they will change, not when the government makes them pay a fee and they just pass it on and nobody knows why prices went up If consumers were made to pay the full price then I can agree with that too. It shouldn't fall to taxpayers is all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 No, it shouldn't fall to taxpayers. Example We all pay for curbside recycling no matter how much we put in. If you buy a case of bottled water and its $05 a bottle on top of the listed price, you have a choice to drink tap water or pay to recycle the bottle. Darn...then we need another law to recycle the bottle instead of just chucking it since you already paid extra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave524 Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) Years ago when they came up with the Three R's....... Reduce , Reuse, Recycle........it was explained to me that they are listed in order of preference with reduction being the preferred option and recycling being the least acceptable or viable option, somehow it has changed over the years with people thinking recycling is a good thing rather than the option of last resort. Edit : remember going to the village general store as a kid , getting a pop for a dime and the storekeeper hitting you up for an extra 2 cents if you took it outside. Edited June 1, 2016 by dave524 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKRISONER Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 No, it shouldn't fall to taxpayers. Example We all pay for curbside recycling no matter how much we put in. If you buy a case of bottled water and its $05 a bottle on top of the listed price, you have a choice to drink tap water or pay to recycle the bottle. Darn...then we need another law to recycle the bottle instead of just chucking it since you already paid extra The whole purpose here is to develop a "circular economy" Extended Producer responsibility is the name of the game. if you are coke, you make packaging and pay an associated fee for said packaging. You need to understand that in capitalism, the customer always pays... The point here is that if there is a levy on packaging, companies always compete to have the lowest pricing. So if packaging becomes excessive and expensive, then the product subsequently becomes expensive and you end up not being competitive. In the same point, the materials that are being recycled are now owned by the producers. there is incentive for them to have their HDPE or LDPE bottles recycled, so that they can buy the bails send them back to their plastic factory and make them into bottles all over again. The Producer now has control of the entire stream and it is more cost effective than using virgin materials. There is still the limitation of what the end user decides to do with a product, especially when it comes to things like hazardous waste. Its your choice to return something like oil to a designated drop off zone funded 100% by industry (Hazardous waste is 100% extended producer responsibility) or to simply dump your used motor oil down the drain. Thank god that majority of people are starting to realize that the environment is something that we need to keep an eye out for so that our future generations will have something left to enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netminder Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 So, should there be a "bottle deposit" for the legal LCBO weed? I've kind of lost track of this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 So, should there be a "bottle deposit" for the legal LCBO weed? I've kind of lost track of this discussion. It certainly has meandered all over the place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKRISONER Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 It certainly has meandered all over the place... ahaha, this derives from the fact that the government is IMO corrupt in its efforts to push forward with monopolizing yet another one of our consumer goods. I personally have to say that I am not a huge fan of these unregulated dispensaries that are shady at best. I am 100% pro legalization, but it needs to be taxed properly and so do the organizations that are profiting from it. As it currently stands you have a whole pile of dispensaries that are attaining product from criminal organizations, and subsequently are not paying a dime of tax on the product they are selling. And please dont come to me with the argument that these companies are "paying taxes" Considering I was in a dispensary last week with a friend who purchased the product "cash only" these businesses are not clean what so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucktownAngler Posted July 9, 2016 Report Share Posted July 9, 2016 Now you have the chance to voice your opinion for real, instead of on this thread http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/index-eng.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts