I gotta say... JT needs some enligtenment!

J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
Since it seems we might actually be covering new ground here, here's my 2 cents on prohibition 2.0.

The words 'prohibition' (to restrict) and 'legalization' (to make legal) are opposite concepts, but simply because the government labels what they are doing as 'legalization' doesn't mean it's not going to be an evolution of prohibition.

In a perfect world, cannabis would be taken off the CDSA and done deal, but for a variety of reasons that's not going to happen. So, 'legalization' could very well be another flavor of prohibition if home grows are not allowed, distribution is restricted to mail order or mail order + pharmacy (you can see all the greedy pharmacy retailers wanting in already). In these cases, I would definitely consider any 'legalization' scheme as just another flavour of prohibition.

JT has made it quite clear his prime motivation for legalization is making it harder for children to get a hold of / out of the hands of organized crime, and has also made clear is mechanism of action will be 'strict' regulation. What does that mean? We won't know for sure until 2017. However, a reasonable person would conclude that 'strict' regulation will include many prohibitions or restrictions. Can't consume it unless you're 10 feet away from a business entrance? That's probably ok. Can't home grow? That's probably not ok.

And one very important thing to keep in mind is that while Kirk Tousaw has mentioned the govt will have a hard time justifying no home grows for rec in the wake of Allard, the legal principles enshrined in R v Parker do not transfer over to recreational as far as choosing between liberty or health. In a rec situation, the s.7 arguments that we have previously seen used in court don't apply, if you're not using it for a medical need, there's nothing forcing you into choosing between your liberty or health.

It's most certainly not impossible, however it's not just as simple as saying 'hey, look at Allard'. And the less simple things are, the longer it'll take. So if the govt does ban home grows, don't expect a final court remedy for 5-10 years.
 
jafro daweedhound

jafro daweedhound

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Since it seems we might actually be covering new ground here, here's my 2 cents on prohibition 2.0.

The words 'prohibition' (to restrict) and 'legalization' (to make legal) are opposite concepts, but simply because the government labels what they are doing as 'legalization' doesn't mean it's not going to be an evolution of prohibition.

In a perfect world, cannabis would be taken off the CDSA and done deal, but for a variety of reasons that's not going to happen. So, 'legalization' could very well be another flavor of prohibition if home grows are not allowed, distribution is restricted to mail order or mail order + pharmacy (you can see all the greedy pharmacy retailers wanting in already). In these cases, I would definitely consider any 'legalization' scheme as just another flavour of prohibition.

JT has made it quite clear his prime motivation for legalization is making it harder for children to get a hold of / out of the hands of organized crime, and has also made clear is mechanism of action will be 'strict' regulation. What does that mean? We won't know for sure until 2017. However, a reasonable person would conclude that 'strict' regulation will include many prohibitions or restrictions. Can't consume it unless you're 10 feet away from a business entrance? That's probably ok. Can't home grow? That's probably not ok.

And one very important thing to keep in mind is that while Kirk Tousaw has mentioned the govt will have a hard time justifying no home grows for rec in the wake of Allard, the legal principles enshrined in R v Parker do not transfer over to recreational as far as choosing between liberty or health. In a rec situation, the s.7 arguments that we have previously seen used in court don't apply, if you're not using it for a medical need, there's nothing forcing you into choosing between your liberty or health.

It's most certainly not impossible, however it's not just as simple as saying 'hey, look at Allard'. And the less simple things are, the longer it'll take. So if the govt does ban home grows, don't expect a final court remedy for 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
Well said...
 
OLD MOTHER SATIVA

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I don't want, need or appreciate anyone's help correcting my use of the English language.

You got some sort of facts or evidence or even a quote that suggests that statement is anything more than delusional? Get back on the meds, the paranoia is really coming out, buddy.
Click to expand...
you have more pride than brains....

i am on this earth to learn and not pass on faulty language to the young

i have no pride..pride prevents growth..pride is what you would like to think you are


on the quote:

..no i don't go looking for stuff i read..but it is very close to the actual quote


your predictions come from the talk of a politician two years ago ..

before he was elected and was forced to moderate his position

my pessemism comes from 50 yrs of listening to predictions from them

that never came true


have a good day... i mean it

please put me on ignore
 
Last edited:
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
OLD MOTHER SATIVA said:
you have more pride than brains....

i am on this earth to learn and not pass on faulty language to the young

i have no pride..pride prevents growth..pride is what you would like to think you are


on the quote:

..no i don't go looking for stuff i read..but it is very close to the actual quote


your predictions come from the talk of a politician two years ago ..

before he was elected and was forced to moderate his position

my pessemism comes from 50 yrs of listening to predictions from them

that never came true


have a good day... i mean it

please put me on ignore
Click to expand...
I don't need a teacher, particularly one who can't figure out spellcheck....
As for my predictions... they come from the fact that everything points to cannabis having the same controls as booze. There has been zero said regarding home production. There is also that pesky little constitution that will force them to justify any restrictions on a legal product. Or how about the fact that a main focus of legalization is to remove the criminal element, which we all agree isn't possible if home grows are not part of the system. What do you base your condemnation of my point of view on, Einstein? Your mistrust of politicians or a bizarre notion that the entire system will be designed around 'protecting the LP's' can hardly count as an informed opinion. I could point to a hundred election promises (politicians make promises, not predictions, professor) that were kept in the last 50 years to everyone that was broken, so your "pessemism" (or pessimism, like us non-professor types like to spell it) is pathetically out of place. History would suggest you should be optimistic.. Sorry (no I'm not) I didn't kiss your feet for correcting my spelling, but at 53 years old, I really don't give a fuck what you or anyone else thinks.
OLD MOTHER SATIVA said:
please put me on ignore
Click to expand...
So now I should put you on ignore in order for you to call me out without having me respond? You'd be easier to ignore if you just went away.
OLD MOTHER SATIVA said:
and this is the last time i make a comment to you....
Click to expand...
Thank fucking christ. Do us all a favour and make that your last comment on RIU.
 
OLD MOTHER SATIVA

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
ok you are really just rude little jerk..i had stopped replying to your dumbass pie in the sky crap..

but then you started quoting me

no

"put me on ignore "if you cannot stop quoting and dragging me into your fabrication pipe dreams

spell check is for people who cannot spell..

you have problem ..its called you have more pride than brains..


do not need want my feet kissed [yawn]and it justshows your pride controlling you

so stop your over the top replies..just spell it correctly from now on!

here you have it again

your predictions come from the talk of a politician two years ago ..

before he was elected and was forced to moderate his position

my pessimism comes from 50 yrs of listening to predictions from them

that never came true
 
OLD MOTHER SATIVA

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
ok you are on ignore now

but before i ever see you again

thanks for pointing out the typo..[not being full of pride sets you free ]
 
OLD MOTHER SATIVA

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Since it seems we might actually be covering new ground here, here's my 2 cents on prohibition 2.0.

The words 'prohibition' (to restrict) and 'legalization' (to make legal) are opposite concepts, but simply because the government labels what they are doing as 'legalization' doesn't mean it's not going to be an evolution of prohibition.

In a perfect world, cannabis would be taken off the CDSA and done deal, but for a variety of reasons that's not going to happen. So, 'legalization' could very well be another flavor of prohibition if home grows are not allowed, distribution is restricted to mail order or mail order + pharmacy (you can see all the greedy pharmacy retailers wanting in already). In these cases, I would definitely consider any 'legalization' scheme as just another flavour of prohibition.

JT has made it quite clear his prime motivation for legalization is making it harder for children to get a hold of / out of the hands of organized crime, and has also made clear is mechanism of action will be 'strict' regulation. What does that mean? We won't know for sure until 2017. However, a reasonable person would conclude that 'strict' regulation will include many prohibitions or restrictions. Can't consume it unless you're 10 feet away from a business entrance? That's probably ok. Can't home grow? That's probably not ok.

And one very important thing to keep in mind is that while Kirk Tousaw has mentioned the govt will have a hard time justifying no home grows for rec in the wake of Allard, the legal principles enshrined in R v Parker do not transfer over to recreational as far as choosing between liberty or health. In a rec situation, the s.7 arguments that we have previously seen used in court don't apply, if you're not using it for a medical need, there's nothing forcing you into choosing between your liberty or health.

It's most certainly not impossible, however it's not just as simple as saying 'hey, look at Allard'. And the less simple things are, the longer it'll take. So if the govt does ban home grows, don't expect a final court remedy for 5-10 years.
Click to expand...


darn well said

THIS!
 
TheRealDman

TheRealDman

Well-Known Member
FFS....VanChris and OMS....give it a rest. All this infighting on MMJ speculation is ridiculously childish.

I have full faith that will be allowed to grow our MMJ, nobody has yet stated otherwise. I concede nobody has said that we will be allowed either...but really, we just don't know?

But consider Phelan's ruling. Phelan's ruling of deemed the MMPR in its current form as being unconstitutional...period. In his decision, he specifically stated that homegrows are/can be made perfectly safe, He was also concerned that patients had no control of strains that worked for them.

He addressed the cost of LP's as being a barrier to access. He noted that he took HC's so called exepert testimony of public safety risk with a grain of salt. He also didn't buy into the wide-spread diversion based on a HA keychain. He flat out dismissed expert testimony on what was going with MMJ in other countries.

HC knows that it will have no choice but to include homegrows. Will their be stricter Reg's that go with them?? Probably....but we just don't know?!?!

I know folks are on edge, it's been 2 years of hell with all this BS. In 100+ days we'll all know the new MMJ Reg. Until then, think positive that the Fed's will come thru. Dwelling on worst case scenarios everyday and fighting amongst ourselves is unhealthy...not too mention just a major buzzkill.

Enjoy your Summer folks, life is to fukin short worrying over what may or MAY NOT happen. We all what the same thing in the end....and IMHO we will get what we need by Aug 24/16.
 
WHATFG

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
It will be the regulations that affect people. As long as they stick to Allard, they can manipulate the law with the regulations....you can grow, but only in a grow box...for example....I've no doubt that patients will be allowed to grow, it's how they're allowed to grow that is going to be problematic.
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
The switch.....
adding undue hardship to systems THAT WORK ALREADY with ZERO PROBLEMS!
will be hard to do if you ask me. (: Got trashed once and that pile is impassible and surmounting..
Court time the whole way through with, Grand Pa being the savior to the entire deal!!!!! ;)
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
WHATFG said:
it's how they're allowed to grow that is going to be problematic.
Click to expand...
Or not...we don't know. I can't see restrictions that add to the financial barriers to access, like bloom boxes, or we'd be right back in court. There are people with very large plant counts and very low income, but even my 49 plants won't fit into a box. They were ordered to make a system that works and does restrict access, and I'm confident they will.
Either that, or Trudeau's jack-booted goon squad will kick our doors in and take our poor little plants and throw our pathetic asses in prison , as some people are keen on preaching... wonder which way it will go?
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
TheRealDman said:
FFS....VanChris and OMS....give it a rest. All this infighting on MMJ speculation is ridiculously childish.

I have full faith that will be allowed to grow our MMJ, nobody has yet stated otherwise. I concede nobody has said that we will be allowed either...but really, we just don't know?

But consider Phelan's ruling. Phelan's ruling of deemed the MMPR in its current form as being unconstitutional...period. In his decision, he specifically stated that homegrows are/can be made perfectly safe, He was also concerned that patients had no control of strains that worked for them.

He addressed the cost of LP's as being a barrier to access. He noted that he took HC's so called exepert testimony of public safety risk with a grain of salt. He also didn't buy into the wide-spread diversion based on a HA keychain. He flat out dismissed expert testimony on what was going with MMJ in other countries.

HC knows that it will have no choice but to include homegrows. Will their be stricter Reg's that go with them?? Probably....but we just don't know?!?!

I know folks are on edge, it's been 2 years of hell with all this BS. In 100+ days we'll all know the new MMJ Reg. Until then, think positive that the Fed's will come thru. Dwelling on worst case scenarios everyday and fighting amongst ourselves is unhealthy...not too mention just a major buzzkill.

Enjoy your Summer folks, life is to fukin short worrying over what may or MAY NOT happen. We all what the same thing in the end....and IMHO we will get what we need by Aug 24/16.
Click to expand...
What did you just say that I haven't? Yet no one jumped all over your predictions...weird. Makes some regular critics of my posts seem even more Troll-like. I don't mean to bring negativity here, but I don't play nice with stupid people and I don't sit back and take it while people toss shit at me. Dumb and Dumber have not offered anything to the discussion other than their mistrust of politicians and the theory that the rights of millions of Canadians will be violated in ordered to protect 2 dozen businesses. Common sense and logic suggest things will turn out much the way you predicted.
 
TheRealDman

TheRealDman

Well-Known Member
@vanchris...just saying you've made your point very clear, and I personally think you're right. But, some folks are extremely pessimistic by nature, they can't help it. Until they can clearly see the writing on the wall, saying anything positive is like screaming in space. Let's be honest, after Harper...it's hard to believe any political party understands common sense. But I will have faith that the Libs do have common sense, and they will do right by us.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
TheRealDman said:
FFS....VanChris and OMS....give it a rest. All this infighting on MMJ speculation is ridiculously childish.

I have full faith that will be allowed to grow our MMJ, nobody has yet stated otherwise. I concede nobody has said that we will be allowed either...but really, we just don't know?

But consider Phelan's ruling. Phelan's ruling of deemed the MMPR in its current form as being unconstitutional...period. In his decision, he specifically stated that homegrows are/can be made perfectly safe, He was also concerned that patients had no control of strains that worked for them.

He addressed the cost of LP's as being a barrier to access. He noted that he took HC's so called exepert testimony of public safety risk with a grain of salt. He also didn't buy into the wide-spread diversion based on a HA keychain. He flat out dismissed expert testimony on what was going with MMJ in other countries.

HC knows that it will have no choice but to include homegrows. Will their be stricter Reg's that go with them?? Probably....but we just don't know?!?!

I know folks are on edge, it's been 2 years of hell with all this BS. In 100+ days we'll all know the new MMJ Reg. Until then, think positive that the Fed's will come thru. Dwelling on worst case scenarios everyday and fighting amongst ourselves is unhealthy...not too mention just a major buzzkill.

Enjoy your Summer folks, life is to fukin short worrying over what may or MAY NOT happen. We all what the same thing in the end....and IMHO we will get what we need by Aug 24/16.
Click to expand...
Well said. My viewpoint hasn't changed, but at this point it's really academic as to what you, I or anyone else says. In August we'll see if we're headed back to court, and that'll likely be a preview of govt's position for legalization. Until then enjoy the summer :)
 
N

nobody important 666

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
If that were the case they should have been concerned with the fact that I can make my own booze, smokes and ammunition. Are any of those things less dangerous for children? A freak bible-thumping group of idiots is not going to dictate the rules for the masses.
Click to expand...
Thats not exactly true. You can press your own bullets but cannot make your own gun powder.
 
N

nobody important 666

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
well maybe not legally but I'm sure you can find it on youtube...you can find anything there...haha
Click to expand...
Potasium nitrate is a control substance. Yes you can get it out of salt peter and cooling bags but it works for crap. If you want your 308 round to hit like a 22 go for it. Yes i know i spelt potasium wrong but am to lazy to check for real spelling as i dont care.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top