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

[fish_fishburn]

Your absolutely right Dave. When it becomes legal its going to move most growing outside or in green houses. Which will also bring the cost down substantially.

[jedimaster]

Nobody is comparing the number of houses burning down to cigarettes or the number houses burning down to anything. Other there are lots of fires caused by grow up. If it gets reduced great. Don't get your panties in an Albright. As for where it will go? I dunno would all go outdoors or would it all go indoors? I have no idea. Will it eliminate the criminal aspect? No. That mug is certain. It will just increase the cross border trafficking. That muh is almost a certainty. If you can grow it legally here. And just smuggle it across the border why would anyone I the US or Canada not grow it here and smuggle it across when they already do. Now now simmer down young lads. I'm not saying that you precious pot is going to cause massive issues becoming legal. Just saying not to be so close minded about all sides just like you all are saying for the other side to not be so close minded.

[jedimaster]

Holy crap. So I just switched back to an android and this typing thing is taking a bit to get used to. Lol and BTW is there a skin that actually displays the website on android a little better.

[John Bacon]

 

Would not the legalization get it out of the basement into proper greenhouses and gardens ? just saying as the need for undetectable growing sites would no longer exist.

 

It depends on how heavily regulated it is. They may insist on licencing all of the growers.

[dave524]

 

It depends on how heavily regulated it is. They may insist on licencing all of the growers.

 

licensed and regulated does not, at least to me, mean it is legal. It is still illegal and you pay for an exemption to the law, not unlike the medical situation today expanded to those who meet certain criteria and can pay.

[John Bacon]

 

licensed and regulated does not, at least to me, mean it is legal. It is still illegal and you pay for an exemption to the law, not unlike the medical situation today expanded to those who meet certain criteria and can pay.

 

By that definition, driving, boating, and fishing are illegal.

[dave524]

 

By that definition, driving, boating, and fishing are illegal.

 

Try any of them without your gov't issued permission slip.

 

edit: actually for most of my life I could boat and fish without any stupid license.

Edited July 15, 2016 by dave524

[GbayGiant]

No Pot in itself is not dangerous when growing as a plant. However grow ops themselves do present a very real danger. To the guy that grows a single plant in his window, No. To the person that decides to grow 10 or 20 plants in his basement under high humidity and Metal Halides? Yes. Just google "Pot Grow op Fire". Houses, apartments, condos etc... burn down every year because of these grow ops. Why would there need to be legislation? To limit the effects of things getting out of control. Personal one person one plant use type things... Yah not sure a big deal. To have a blanket statement like growing cannabis is not dangerous is just smoking out the side of your mouth.

 

I'm neither for not against the legalization, however I am very much for sensible legislation and control not unlike sensible legislation and control of firearms, tobacco and alcohol. Laws aren't generally put in place to protect the public from responsible people. Its to help protect the unsensible people from themselves and everyone around them.

 

On on hand you can view this as a reason to not legalize it and on another you can see this as a reason to legalize it. I'm not saying either one is better than the other just that I think your statement is a bit one sided, agenda driven and doesn't see the full picture.

I mean if legislation gets put in place and allows people to grow safely maybe it cuts down on the illegal pot grow ops and actually has some benefit in that regard. Wouldn't that be great.

 

 

you are very wrong with your thinking.

You should read the Judges MMJ decision on growing. Not the people who lied about how dangerous it is due to ulterior motives.

but again. You do not know.

Most have no clue and listen to things that just aren't true. Only because it doesn't matter to them which is understandable.

 

here...you can read all about it and find that what you have said is completely wrong.

 

http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-2030-13%20reasons%2024-02-2016%20(ENG).pdf

 

Ill make it easier

 

To all leadership and members of the Cannabis Rights Coalition

In the wake of Allard the Coalition has been working diligently in the back ground to prepare for what may arise from Allard. Moreover, the Coalition has strong reasons to believe the federal government of Canada will “heavily restrict plant counts” as with how and where one can cultivate marihuana. We all need recognize that in Allard we only proved no “public safety” existed with respect to home cultivation the judge did not address what was reasonable with respect to growing only that we can continue as no public safety was established by Canada during the Allard trial.

The fundamental Right to autonomy is an international Right that in essence allows any free civilian to put into their bodies whatever they wish provided that they are not hurting themselves or others “the public” in the process of exercising their Right to autonomy. The federal government of Canada in concert with the heads of various departments of government RCMP, Fire Chiefs, and Health Canada all stood on the national stage in 2012 and sold to Canadian civilians that organized crime, fire, and mold were problems that plague the then federal marihuana program known as the Medical Marihuana Access Division (MMAD) and governing Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR).

You see to remove the right to grow marihuana for personal use is very much an issue of autonomy when we look at the safety, non addictive nature of marihuana as with the fact there is no lethal death dose in relation to any form of marihuana use it becomes more clear why those said officials stood and lied to the public of Canada sighting organized crime, fire, and mold as “public safety” concerns thus opening the door to “strip our Right to autonomy” sighting us marihuana growers were a threat to the general public and ourselves.

The judge in Allard agreed that Canada the defendant failed to substantiate claims of organized crime as with claims of fire with respect to the 34,000 growers and their gardens. In fact, before trial the Coalition secured a $70,000 federal Injunction that was appealed by Canada. They failed under appeal to show any public safety concerns to home gardens. So when we look at justice Manson who first approved the Injunction on March 21st 2014 coupled with the three federal judges on the appeals bench who unanimously agreed with justice Manson that no public safety excised. So this leaves us with four federal judges who agreed with our position of no public safety.

The Coalition took Canada to trial using only $300,000 raised to fight while Canada spent 1.2-million-dollar’s in defence of their beloved (MMPR). Justice Phelan who presided over the Allard trial came back with a blistering and damaging blow to the defendant Canada and their MMPR scheme. First off the judge found that Canada’s experts in organized crime did not prove a single conviction of a medical marihuana grower let alone organized medical patients to support “organized crime”. In addition, justice Phelan noted the expert fire Chief for Canada could not demonstrate a single fire attributed to a medical marihuana legal garden. The government of Canada waged war on the medical growers of Canada via bad unconstitutional policy known as the MMPR failed to support their claim so horribly that justice Phelan decided compensation for some costs be granted for the plaintiffs. This compassionate judge’s stance in his decision is as historic as the Allard trial itself. Who has ever put Canada on trial, with a “restraining order” in place known as an Injunction then won in trial to the extent that, first the trial went “uncontested” and second the plaintiffs were “awarded costs”. This sets me to the next point of contention out there that suggests that Allard is fully funded or that anyone is getting any funds. The reality is as the client in the Allard matter I can assure all accounting and costs. Our challenge is over $750,000+ billed however we only raised $300,000 leaving our legal team with allot of unpaid bills. We also need take into account that a hearing must be held with the attorneys to see if compensation will in fact be awarded to the plaintiffs and if so how much? So as we move forward and rumours of Allard being funded and all is well is farthest from the truth. Were in fact paying off Allard while preparing for any legislation arising from Allard that we may wish challenge.

If Health Canada was hypothetically to cap our plant counts at some unreasonable number say between 6-25 X number of plants only allowed to grow a certain height with a square foot space restriction. We have many in the culture acting finally to address the MMPR many helped usher in. The focus must remain on frontline service for the end user as with personal home cultivation.

The Cannabis Rights Coalition will be touring nationally to celebrate the win in Allard that protected growing in Canada. In addition, the Allard uncontested win has set precedence for legalization with the option to personally grow. Thanks to the brave patients who fought with disability checks and supporters who collectively took out that threat of a model to legalization without plants as Justin and the Liberals had planned. Now Canada will always be able to grow for Allard was a Constitutional challenge that was won uncontested thus the right to grow marihuana in Canada can never be taken or attempt to be taken again. They will try and restrict this Right, this said we have a lot of time to address how legalization will look in Canada.

In closing come join the Cannabis Rights Coalitionhttp://cannabisrightscoalition.ca and get involved with the organization who has and will continue to protect the rights of those persons who choose to use cannabis as a treatment or therapy. Together we can continue to make history, and remember time tells all truths. In the past five years of the MMPR this Coalition has been fighting for your rights via Injunction, Allard trail, and Privacy lawsuits filed while others ushered un the MMPR and chanted vote liberals the Coalition remained reserved with respect to their agenda. Expect to hear allot more from the Coalition as the feds close in on legislating Allard.

Edited July 15, 2016 by GbayGiant

[BucktownAngler]

 

A few basic propositions for the legalization task force to consider.

1. Consuming cannabis is not deviant behaviour. It is normal and people that do so are not criminals, addicts, "pot-heads" or otherwise different from people that don't.

2. Growing cannabis is not dangerous. It's a plant, not nuclear material.

3. Cannabis has a huge and growing culture that is much like wine culture - we love the different smells, tastes and effects. We like to talk about it, share it, have fun with it. These things should be celebrated, not marginalized.

4. Cannabis is dramatically safer than alcohol and tobacco and there are simply no logical reasons why access to it should be restricted any more than those substances. In fact, to the extent that cannabis use replaces or decreases alcohol and tobacco use, it should be encouraged as a public health good. There is a public health argument that cannabis should be easier to access because it is safer.

 

 

they wont consider your post on OFC

 

take the time to fill out the survey online

 

http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/index-eng.php

[jedimaster]

Gbay, For real dude. Don't get all twisted up. Nobody was comparing anything to anything. All I said was there are lots of fires caused by people growing pot. Its not fiction. Its fact. How many is lots? More than a couple per month in BC. Happens all the time out there. How many due to cig smoking? Likely more but no one was comparing that. However if you are comparing and I was not cigarettes for example in the us have anti burn chemicals added to them to help mitigate that effect. Would you support that for pot since you are comparing them?

As I said people need to be protected from themselves at times and innocent people needs to be protected from the stupid. Like banning Lawn Darts or forcing people to wear seat belts. etc... etc...

I am not against, nor am I for legalization or allowing or disallowing people to grow there own. Personally I don't care. if they do allow it would be prudent to come up with sensible legislation on indoor grow ops. What is sensible legislation? I dunno. Perhaps a max of 1000 watts of lighting allowed, perhaps restricting the number of plants, perhaps don't allow it to grow indoors at all and setup public grow houses like they already have for public gardens and charge people a few or something like. that where the location can be secured from kids, crooks and where its all wired up properly. I really don't know. All I said is sensible legislation is not entirely a bad thing.

 

I feel the same way about gun control, and fishing laws, drunk driving, smoking etc... and I do all of those and I am all for sensible legislation.

 

As for cigarettes if you want to keep that comparison you are only allowed to grow 15 kgs of tobacco per calendar year for your own consumption. Why not something similar for pot? Is that too infringing to say ok if you smoke an ounce a month you can only grow X number of plants per year. I mean I dunno what people would deam how much is enough for one persons personal consumption but really that's something people should lobby about.

[GbayGiant]

A few more propositions for the legalization task force:

1. People that grow cannabis now, lawfully and unlawfully, are not deviants, anti-social, criminogenic, immoral or otherwise worth of any derision simply because they grow cannabis. Many are passionate lovers of the plant and their love and hard work is worthy of praise much as we'd praise any artisan devoted to their craft.

2. People that sell cannabis now, lawfully and unlawfully, are exactly the same. The act of growing or selling cannabis is not morally blameworthy in and of itself and should not be the basis for any current or future discrimination. That a bad law has persisted for decades despite the widespread harm it causes is not the fault of those who persevered in spite of that bad law - the fault lies elsewhere.

3. People that grow, sell, process and work with cannabis now, lawfully and unlawfully, are developing expertise in those endeavours. Legacy producers and distributors (whom of necessity will have mostly been unlawful) are experts in those tasks - they are a valuable resource. They are a necessary component of any successful future.

4. Seen properly, the culture of cannabis is a social good, a positive thing, a way for free people to interact, express themselves creatively, to be entrepreneurs and innovators, to bring pleasure to themselves and to others. Condemning, implicitly or explicitly, cannabis culture by, for example, banning places of social consumption, overly restricting branding and marketing or discouraging cannabis tourism is wrong. It would be akin to a government campaign designed to demonize or diminish Canada's vibrant vineyard and wine industry, or its burgeoning craft beer culture, or even it's fantastic outdoor sports and recreation opportunities.

[GbayGiant]

Gbay, For real dude. Don't get all twisted up. Nobody was comparing anything to anything. All I said was there are lots of fires caused by people growing pot. Its not fiction. Its fact. How many is lots? More than a couple per month in BC. Happens all the time out there. How many due to cig smoking? Likely more but no one was comparing that. However if you are comparing and I was not cigarettes for example in the us have anti burn chemicals added to them to help mitigate that effect. Would you support that for pot since you are comparing them?

As I said people need to be protected from themselves at times and innocent people needs to be protected from the stupid. Like banning Lawn Darts or forcing people to wear seat belts. etc... etc...

I am not against, nor am I for legalization or allowing or disallowing people to grow there own. Personally I don't care. if they do allow it would be prudent to come up with sensible legislation on indoor grow ops. What is sensible legislation? I dunno. Perhaps a max of 1000 watts of lighting allowed, perhaps restricting the number of plants, perhaps don't allow it to grow indoors at all and setup public grow houses like they already have for public gardens and charge people a few or something like. that where the location can be secured from kids, crooks and where its all wired up properly. I really don't know. All I said is sensible legislation is not entirely a bad thing.

 

I feel the same way about gun control, and fishing laws, drunk driving, smoking etc... and I do all of those and I am all for sensible legislation.

 

As for cigarettes if you want to keep that comparison you are only allowed to grow 15 kgs of tobacco per calendar year for your own consumption. Why not something similar for pot? Is that too infringing to say ok if you smoke an ounce a month you can only grow X number of plants per year. I mean I dunno what people would deam how much is enough for one persons personal consumption but really that's something people should lobby about.

no fires were caused by MMJ people.

Not even one out of more than 40000 licensed people

The issue you speak of are ILLEGAL grow ops. For illegal purposes ...A completely different animal.

you have to realize what matters.

Edited July 15, 2016 by GbayGiant

[jedimaster]

As I said not all people do stupid things. The laws put in place should be to protect the stupid from themselves and the innocent from the stupid. Let me ask you this. How many illegal grow ups would be legal grow ups and how many of those fires would have still occurred? Obviously that question can't be answered. To just assume 0 though is as shortsighted as saying they will all be the same.

[GbayGiant]

It was answered in court and you obviously did not read it.

short sightedness! ?

 

 

Agreed!

 

[Dara]

If grow ops were legal they wouldn't need to hide them and I believe this would reduce they fire hazard

[jedimaster]

That is entirely true. But playing the Devils advocate it cause more if more people are growing without any restrictions. All I'm saying is to consider both sides. If say one was legally allowed to grow as much as you wanted who it a restriction of plants or kgs with respect to personal consumption then why would people not grow ever purple, lemon, jellybean whatever strain for variety reasons alone. All I'm saying is there are fires currently be it illegal grow ops or not. The reason is because growing one or two Plants isn't a big deal but growing dozens yah that does present a risk. And as others have said maybe people just grow outside. Maybe if everyone grows outside it causes people to break into your yard and steal them. I really don't know but pot has an intrinsic value greater than tomatoes. Where there is value there is temptation. Just playing devils advocate. Not at all accusing anyone of anything.

[Big Cliff]

And everyone can legally grow tomatoes but not everyone does. Apart from the odd vandle I don't know of many people running around stealing tomatoes from peoples yards though!

[dave524]

. Maybe if everyone grows outside it causes people to break into your yard and steal them. I really don't know but pot has an intrinsic value greater than tomatoes. Where there is value there is temptation. Just playing devils advocate. Not at all accusing anyone of anything.

 

With any luck it will end up like zucchini , when they start producing you have a hard time even giving them away

[GbayGiant]

That is entirely true. But playing the Devils advocate it cause more if more people are growing without any restrictions. All I'm saying is to consider both sides. If say one was legally allowed to grow as much as you wanted who it a restriction of plants or kgs with respect to personal consumption then why would people not grow ever purple, lemon, jellybean whatever strain for variety reasons alone. All I'm saying is there are fires currently be it illegal grow ops or not. The reason is because growing one or two Plants isn't a big deal but growing dozens yah that does present a risk. And as others have said maybe people just grow outside. Maybe if everyone grows outside it causes people to break into your yard and steal them. I really don't know but pot has an intrinsic value greater than tomatoes. Where there is value there is temptation. Just playing devils advocate. Not at all accusing anyone of anything.

sadly there are TWO sides. ,medical and Recreational.

One needs their meds. the other can go with out.

Its that simple.

Next, you'll tell us it has no medical value,

If you want to play the advocate, learn about it first and have something that is pertinent to say.

 

cheers

[jedimaster]

To those that have no real medical use for it yes in fact it does not serve any medical use at all. Only serves to get you high. Its the magical guise that pot heads use as an excuse. Oh it cures the MS/Chronic back pain/Cancer etc... that I don't have. Honestly to those that need it for legitimate reasons its a bit of a disgrace to hear potheads use that as an excuse for smoking it and casts a bad light on those that do need it. Sure if you have a use for it all the power to you and it's unfortunate that your affliction is there and you need it but yes it should be and currently IS available to you if you go through the right channels.

 

If you actually read some of my posts I am all for medical use. Not to mention I have said a number of times I don't really care one way or another if someone uses it recreationally. However just like any other mind altering substance that is legalized(well alcohol being the only other one) there should be some controls on it to ensure the publics safety from those that abuse and are stupid about it. The people that want a buzz and eat a pot brownie while being responsible, who cares. Those that make a nuisance of themselves are the ones that will be determining how heavy restrictions are that are put in place for others.

 

For example the smell of someone's backyard crop invading there neighbors is an issue. There is a licensed grow house in markham by the food bank where my kids volunteer. Some days the smell is brutal strong. To the point where volunteers go home. Yes, yes, I know, I know, some people like the smell of pot, good for them. But for many many others it is a nuisance. So some sort of legislation to prevent some people from annoying others isn't a bad thing. Just like I'm sure you wouldn't want your neighbor playing Britney Spears all night long and I'm sure you would complain about that. Smell violations might be one of those things included perhaps by limiting ones crop size, where or how it may or may not be grown. Who knows. It will be interesting to see what this group comes up with as far as legislation.

Edited July 27, 2016 by jedimaster

[GbayGiant]

love the comments from people who know very little.

 

A Harvard study from 2007 which remains the most comprehensive ever released on THC’s potential to combat tumors found that in just three weeks doses of THC were able to cut lung cancer tumor growth in half in mice subjects, and were able to reduce cancer lesions by even more.

For the study, Harvard researchers tested THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is found naturally in cannabis) on cancer cells in labs, and followed that up by studying mice subjects.

The lab demonstration found that doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cancer cells; “When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays,” states Anju Preet, PhD, who was one of the researchers for the study.

Following the lab test, researchers dosed mice – which were implanted with human lung cancer cells – with THC, and found that in just three weeks, tumors were reduced in both size and weight by roughly 50% compared to a control group. According to Preet, cancer lesions on the lungs were also reduced – by nearly 60% – and there was as a significant reduction in “protein markers” associated with cancer progression.

Researchers predict that THC had such a positive effect on combating tumors because it activates molecules that arrest the cell cycle, and may also interfere with the processes of angiogenesis and vascularization, which lead to cancer growth.

Over 6 years since its original release, this study remains one of the most important cannabis-related studies ever released.

Source: TheJointBlog.Com

"To those that have no real medical use for it yes in fact it does not serve any medical use at all."

You are one of the people I am referring to here.

Edited August 9, 2016 by GbayGiant

[Big Cliff]

love the comments from people who know very little.

 

A Harvard study from 2007 which remains the most comprehensive ever released on THC’s potential to combat tumors found that in just three weeks doses of THC were able to cut lung cancer tumor growth in half in mice subjects, and were able to reduce cancer lesions by even more.

For the study, Harvard researchers tested THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is found naturally in cannabis) on cancer cells in labs, and followed that up by studying mice subjects.

The lab demonstration found that doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cancer cells; “When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays,” states Anju Preet, PhD, who was one of the researchers for the study.

Following the lab test, researchers dosed mice – which were implanted with human lung cancer cells – with THC, and found that in just three weeks, tumors were reduced in both size and weight by roughly 50% compared to a control group. According to Preet, cancer lesions on the lungs were also reduced – by nearly 60% – and there was as a significant reduction in “protein markers” associated with cancer progression.

Researchers predict that THC had such a positive effect on combating tumors because it activates molecules that arrest the cell cycle, and may also interfere with the processes of angiogenesis and vascularization, which lead to cancer growth.

Over 6 years since its original release, this study remains one of the most important cannabis-related studies ever released.

Source: TheJointBlog.Com

"To those that have no real medical use for it yes in fact it does not serve any medical use at all."

You are one of the people I am referring to here.

This sparked some very interesting reading! Thank you!

[GbayGiant]

even one is well worth the effort!

[jedimaster]

I agree.. and just to be clear your link is relating to PURE THC. That is not at all what is being legalized or being sold at the LCBO.

 

 

Cannabis smoke contains thousands of organic and inorganic chemicals, including many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke.^[34] A 2012 special report by the British Lung Foundation concluded that cannabis smoking was linked to many adverse effects, including bronchitis and lung cancer.^[35] They identified cannabis smoke as a carcinogen and also said awareness of the danger was low compared with the high awareness of the dangers of smoking tobacco particularly among younger users. They said there was an increased risk from each cannabis cigarette due to drawing in large puffs of smoke and holding them.^[35] Marijuana smoke has been listed on the California Proposition 65 warning list as a carcinogen since 2009, but leaves and pure THC are not.^[36]

 

 

love the comments from people who know very little.

[jedimaster]

Its going to be very interesting to see what the legislation comes down to. Will they only legalize the sale of edibles produced by licensed companies? Will the take the reins completely off? Will pot be sold in smokeable form? Will people be allowed to grow there own? How are they intending on dealing with pot in schools? What about prior criminal records? What about people currently in jail? What about people previously fined? I mean there are a lot details to be worked out. Not to mention the UN treaties that were signed in good faith by canada to be a drug free country.