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

[Dutch01]

Id assume the short term decision has to do with seeing new legislature?

I'm not sure the liberals will be keen to redo conservative legislation. They may just let it ride until their new system is ready.

[manitoubass2]

I'm not sure the liberals will be keen to redo conservative legislation. They may just let it ride until their new system is ready.

Yeah that makes sense(politically) Edited February 24, 2016 by manitoubass2

[tb4me]

Here's my 2 cents on the the whole "growing your own" for medicine..I think it should be allowed, the stuff that comes from dispensaries is full of all sorts of toxins. From pesticides to fertilizers. all sorts of nasty stuff. I also recently read an article of mold spores in the dried flowers of major growers and producers, its basically unavoidable In my humble opinion the best medicine should be organically grown outdoors by the individual consuming it or grown by a loved one or friend.

On another note I ran across this Bull today.. Suddenly Big Pahrma wants in on the medicinal game..Surprised? I think not..Right up until last year it wasn't considered a medicine and we were all just a bunch of potheads looking for a free ride..This crap drives me nuts....

http://www.cp24.com/mobile/lifestyle/health/shoppers-drug-mart-pharmacies-safest-option-for-medical-marijuana-1.2791273

[Dara]

The parts that drive me nuts are the government greedily wringing their hands at all the new taxes they can steal from us and all the new laws they are thinking of making to further control us.

 

It's freaking weed..people have been smoking it for years...just leave it alone.

 

Why can't they just say, yeah, we aren't going to put you in jail for smoking a joint anymore and be done with it

[Oggie]

The parts that drive me nuts are the government greedily wringing their hands at all the new taxes they can steal from us and all the new laws they are thinking of making to further control us.

 

It's freaking weed..people have been smoking it for years...just leave it alone.

 

Why can't they just say, yeah, we aren't going to put you in jail for smoking a joint anymore and be done with it

Because it won[t be that simple. If you look at the U.S. states that legalized it all kinds of problems pop up that will require money to solve. DUI's go through the roof for example and they need to train cops to recognize the driver thats under the influence. The training requires money and eventually equipment. The increased health care that will eventually be required because of increased smoking (pot isn't any better for you than cigarettes) will require money. Legalize it if you want but usage will go up and that will cost money. I shouldn't pay for that increased cost.

[manitoubass2]

Because it won[t be that simple. If you look at the U.S. states that legalized it all kinds of problems pop up that will require money to solve. DUI's go through the roof for example and they need to train cops to recognize the driver thats under the influence. The training requires money and eventually equipment. The increased health care that will eventually be required because of increased smoking (pot isn't any better for you than cigarettes) will require money. Legalize it if you want but usage will go up and that will cost money. I shouldn't pay for that increased cost.

Pot and ciggerettes have the same health effects????

 

What pot are you smoking?

[Oggie]

Yup! Joints don't even have a filter to reduce the particulates. You're more likely to get lung cancer smoking joints than cigarettes according to the studies I've read.

 

You've bought into the idea that smoking dope is good for you??? Seriously? Like taking vitamins or supplements. THC helps to control medical problems apparently but it's not something you take to improve your health. That's like saying ibuprofen or tylenol should be taken daily to improve your health.

[Dara]

Because it won[t be that simple. If you look at the U.S. states that legalized it all kinds of problems pop up that will require money to solve. DUI's go through the roof for example and they need to train cops to recognize the driver thats under the influence. The training requires money and eventually equipment. The increased health care that will eventually be required because of increased smoking (pot isn't any better for you than cigarettes) will require money. Legalize it if you want but usage will go up and that will cost money. I shouldn't pay for that increased cost.

 

 

I'm pretty sure cops are already trained to spot an impaired driver...they may ask for the perks of extra classroom time but.....

 

Most people that want to smoke pot already do, and those sales aren't taxed. If a company wants to grow and sell pot, they will pay income tax and we pay HST on purchases...what more do you want

[Oggie]

 

 

I'm pretty sure cops are already trained to spot an impaired driver...they may ask for the perks of extra classroom time but.....

 

Most people that want to smoke pot already do, and those sales aren't taxed. If a company wants to grow and sell pot, they will pay income tax and we pay HST on purchases...what more do you want

Impaired by alcohol but no impaired by drugs. That requires special training otherwise a good defense lawyer rips the cop to pieces on the stand. Not many cops are trained currently for drugs that's why they bring in a specific officer if they suspect impaired driving by drugs.

 

In Washington state once they legalized pot the usage went up dramatically. Ontario usage will go up as well.

 

I'm fine with legalizing it as long as people pay tax on it. That's the ONLY up side for the non-users well that and maybe the criminal growing ops will be reduced.

[netminder]

In Washington state once they legalized pot the usage went up dramatically. Ontario usage will go up as well.

Yes, the number of people willing to admit to the government or a survey taker that they smoke weed will go up dramatically once it's legal.

[Dutch01]

Yup! Joints don't even have a filter to reduce the particulates. You're more likely to get lung cancer smoking joints than cigarettes according to the studies I've read.

 

You've bought into the idea that smoking dope is good for you??? Seriously? Like taking vitamins or supplements. THC helps to control medical problems apparently but it's not something you take to improve your health. That's like saying ibuprofen or tylenol should be taken daily to improve your health.

DUI did not increase, just the enforcement. Someone who does not smoke pot is not going to suddenly decide to get stoned and drive because weed is legal. Anyone who will do that is already doing it now.

 

Secondly, you are wrong about tobacco being equally as damaging as pot. Dr. Donald Tashkin, professor of medicine at UCLA oversaw the largest and longest longitudinal study of its kind. That study concluded that rates of lung cancer did not increase, even with moderate use over long periods of time. You can read more about Tashkin's work here if you're into facts:

 

http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/annalsats.201212-127fr#.Vs8l80XEjCQ

 

Excerpt (I had to use OCR text recognition, please forgive any typos):

 

Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function

when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.

 

Can you provide a link to any of the studies you have read? I would like to review them further.

 

Thanks.

 

Dutch

Edited February 25, 2016 by Dutch01

[manitoubass2]

DUI did not increase, just the enforcement. Someone who does not smoke pot is not going to suddenly decide to get stoned and drive because weed is legal. Anyone who will do that is already doing it now.

 

Secondly, you are wrong about tobacco being equally as damaging as pot. Dr. Donald Tashkin, professor of medicine at UCLA oversaw the largest and longest longitudinal study of its kind. That study concluded that rates of lung cancer did not increase, even with moderate use over long periods of time. You can read more about Tashkin's work here if you're into facts:

 

http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/annalsats.201212-127fr#.Vs8l80XEjCQ

 

Excerpt (I had to use OCR text recognition, please forgive any typos):

 

Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function

when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.

 

Can you provide a link to any of the studies you have read? I would like to review them further.

 

Thanks.

 

Dutch

A search of pubmed shows similar studies and results.

 

I dont believe for one second marijuana is anywhere near as damaging as cigarettes.

 

And many cannabinoids do have supplemental benefits

[Old Ironmaker]

I can see it now, high speed chases where the Cops are chasing Cheech and Chong doing between 20 and 22 KPH, and signalling lane changes.

 

I am one of those that has changed my view of those smoking the Sacrament. Do what you want and when, just do it responsibly in the privacy of your own home. And don't invite Abby Noxious. Now having said that I know more than a few 50 and 60 year olds that are addicted to it, not many but they certainly are addicted, no doubt in my mind. They have to fire up a big blunt as soon as they touch their feet to the floor in the AM and just before they hit the hay at night. My brother being one. He is 56 and has been trying to quit for 25 years.

[manitoubass2]

I can see it now, high speed chases where the Cops are chasing Cheech and Chong doing between 20 and 22 KPH, and signalling lane changes.

 

I am one of those that has changed my view of those smoking the Sacrament. Do what you want and when, just do it responsibly in the privacy of your own home. And don't invite Abby Noxious. Now having said that I know more than a few 50 and 60 year olds that are addicted to it, not many but they certainly are addicted, no doubt in my mind. They have to fire up a big blunt as soon as they touch their feet to the floor in the AM and just before they hit the hay at night. My brother being one. He is 56 and has been trying to quit for 25 years.

Hahahaha.

 

Yeah marijuana is addictive, but I wouldnt say its highly addictive.

 

When I went through some studies(which are pretty loose) the number of users a physiological dependance on endocannabinoids was around 9%

[Oggie]

Check out the credibility of the organization before you cite them. Anyone can belong to the ATS as long as you pay you're membership fee. You're not reading a study by the AMA or Scientific American here. If you pay enough money to a research group you can come up with any conclusion you want. The ATS has been accused of being influenced by interest groups.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KUfvQpxRfo0C&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=Credibility+of+the+American+Thoracic+Society&source=bl&ots=bIsgrlqz5G&sig=GVtNwQEwy9TZRYaA-KyqvXEn9Hk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisydCDrZPLAhUGqR4KHazZATkQ6AEIRzAI#v=onepage&q=Credibility%20of%20the%20American%20Thoracic%20Society&f=false

 

The tobacco industry funded studies like that for years too.

[manitoubass2]

Check out the credibility of the organization before you cite them. Anyone can belong to the ATS as long as you pay you're membership fee. You're not reading a study by the AMA or Scientific American here. If you pay enough money to a research group you can come up with any conclusion you want. The ATS has been accused of being influenced by interest groups.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KUfvQpxRfo0C&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=Credibility+of+the+American+Thoracic+Society&source=bl&ots=bIsgrlqz5G&sig=GVtNwQEwy9TZRYaA-KyqvXEn9Hk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisydCDrZPLAhUGqR4KHazZATkQ6AEIRzAI#v=onepage&q=Credibility%20of%20the%20American%20Thoracic%20Society&f=false

 

The tobacco industry funded studies like that for years too.

Search pubmed. You find alot of similar studies

[Oggie]

I can see it now, high speed chases where the Cops are chasing Cheech and Chong doing between 20 and 22 KPH, and signalling lane changes.

 

I am one of those that has changed my view of those smoking the Sacrament. Do what you want and when, just do it responsibly in the privacy of your own home. And don't invite Abby Noxious. Now having said that I know more than a few 50 and 60 year olds that are addicted to it, not many but they certainly are addicted, no doubt in my mind. They have to fire up a big blunt as soon as they touch their feet to the floor in the AM and just before they hit the hay at night. My brother being one. He is 56 and has been trying to quit for 25 years.

That's been pretty much how I feel. The changes in their personalities was pretty easy to see as well. It definitely gives you the Cheech and Chong delivery if you smoke a lot IMO. It's no different than alcohol so smoke it if you want but it sure won't improve your health although it'll help you think you are healthier.

[Dutch01]

Check out the credibility of the organization before you cite them. Anyone can belong to the ATS as long as you pay you're membership fee. You're not reading a study by the AMA or Scientific American here. If you pay enough money to a research group you can come up with any conclusion you want. The ATS has been accused of being influenced by interest groups.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KUfvQpxRfo0C&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=Credibility+of+the+American+Thoracic+Society&source=bl&ots=bIsgrlqz5G&sig=GVtNwQEwy9TZRYaA-KyqvXEn9Hk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisydCDrZPLAhUGqR4KHazZATkQ6AEIRzAI#v=onepage&q=Credibility%20of%20the%20American%20Thoracic%20Society&f=false

 

The tobacco industry funded studies like that for years too.

I assure you Donald Tashkin is not sponsored by big tobacco. He has a lifetime body of work you can read for yourself instead of dismissing out of hand.

[Oggie]

I'll take you're word for it Dutch. It just defies logic as to how marijuana smoke wouldn't be as bad or worse than cigarette smoke. Any smoke isn't good for you ..... it's common sense. I can see the use of THC in properly regulated clinical amounts to control a medical condition if the med hellps. Smoking a joint isn't in any way a controlled amount. It depends on a gazzilion variables. How do you know how much THC to take to control the symptoms?

 

Lets face it we're legalizing marijuana for the same reasons we legalized gambling, alcohol, prostitution etc. The masses want it legalized and criminal enforcement hasn't worked. So lets tax the crap out of it and move on! LOL

[manitoubass2]

Marijuana smoke, suggested by studies, the cannabinoids somehow negate negative effects on lung tissue and cancer cell growth.

 

Although on paper, it contains roùghly 50% more tar than tobbacco, in comparison, marijuana smokers smoke far less than tobacco users.

 

Marijuana use shows no signs of increasing cancer nor does it effect the pulmonary system.

 

It can cause temporary bronchitus that regulates itelf upon quitting, or temporary COPD.

[Dutch01]

I'll take you're word for it Dutch. It just defies logic as to how marijuana smoke wouldn't be as bad or worse than cigarette smoke. Any smoke isn't good for you ..... it's common sense. I can see the use of THC in properly regulated clinical amounts to control a medical condition if the med hellps. Smoking a joint isn't in any way a controlled amount. It depends on a gazzilion variables. How do you know how much THC to take to control the symptoms?

 

Lets face it we're legalizing marijuana for the same reasons we legalized gambling, alcohol, prostitution etc. The masses want it legalized and criminal enforcement hasn't worked. So lets tax the crap out of it and move on! LOL

Any smoke has carcinogenic properties, so I understand where you are coming from.

 

In studies done with rats, when their endocannabinoid system was blocked they developed massive tumors. The study authors inferred that the interaction of cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system protects against the formation of tumors.

 

While there is a dearth of research on the subject due to class 1 scheduling in the US, there is certainly evidence that marijuana may play a role in treating cancer (beyond the already noted value of increasing appetite/relieving nausea on chemotherapy patients).

 

If any other substance was discovered to have these properties it would be hailed as a huge breakthrough. However, because governments are invested in prohibition and incarceration, and marijuana cannot be patented, there has been a long history of resistance to even exploring its medical value.

[manitoubass2]

Any smoke has carcinogenic properties, so I understand where you are coming from.

 

In studies done with rats, when their endocannabinoid system was blocked they developed massive tumors. The study authors inferred that the interaction of cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system protects against the formation of tumors.

 

While there is a dearth of research on the subject due to class 1 scheduling in the US, there is certainly evidence that marijuana may play a role in treating cancer (beyond the already noted value of increasing appetite/relieving nausea on chemotherapy patients).

 

If any other substance was discovered to have these properties it would be hailed as a huge breakthrough. However, because governments are invested in prohibition and incarceration, and marijuana cannot be patented, there has been a long history of resistance to even exploring its medical value.

Absolutely.

 

Also of note, blocking the endocannabinoid system doesnt just cause tumours, it caused cancerous tumours in the liver

[ehg]

I'll take you're word for it Dutch. It just defies logic as to how marijuana smoke wouldn't be as bad or worse than cigarette smoke. Any smoke isn't good for you ..... it's common sense. I can see the use of THC in properly regulated clinical amounts to control a medical condition if the med hellps. Smoking a joint isn't in any way a controlled amount.

My yard backs right on to a dog park here in T.O.

Always smell dope back there. Not young people but upper-middle class housewives and retirees gathering

together in groups chatting about their fancy dogs and getting buzzed on weed. It stinks and is somewhat offensive to my 13 yr. old.

Sometimes see her teachers back there with dogs puffing.

 

Tinctures and digestible cannabis oils (not smoked) have saved lives of some people i know with cancer.

Even effective for my post surgery back pain and ravages of my severe multiple sclerosis.

Hopefully Shoppers Drug Mart and government can get it right. Smoking weed isn't beneficial but tinctures, oils

if medically supervised are better than all these Oxy-opiates.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ehg

[Dutch01]

My yard backs right on to a dog park here in T.O.

Always smell dope back there. Not young people but upper-middle class housewives and retirees gathering

together in groups chatting about their fancy dogs and getting buzzed on weed. It stinks and is somewhat offensive to my 13 yr. old.

Sometimes see her teachers back there with dogs puffing.

 

Tinctures and digestible cannabis oils (not smoked) have saved lives of some people i know with cancer.

Even effective for my post surgery back pain and ravages of my severe multiple sclerosis.

Hopefully Shoppers Drug Mart and government can get it right. Smoking weed isn't beneficial but tinctures, oils

if medically supervised are better than all these Oxy-opiates.

Smoking may not be beneficial for your purposes, but it's not one size fits all.

 

I've seen video of a guy with severe cerebral palsy. He cannot take care of himself or even speak. 3 minutes after a rip on a pipe and he can speak clearly and move around on his own.

 

 

Edit: I do agree people should bee considerate about where and when they smoke. Some people just don't know how to be on the down low.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Dutch01

[ehg]

Ya my condition is cerebral palsy like. Tinctures and oils are very helpful and saved the life of someone i know with cancer.

Also wanted to point out that the main consumers of dope around here are well off professionals and retirees with fancy dogs at dog park.