Legal cannabis in Canada

163 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Legal cannabis in Canada

And so it begins. Still a few days away but not too soon to talk about the changes. 

I have no trouble obtaining cannabis and I am mostly at home so legalization isn't going to have much impact on me other than I might grow a bit. The aspect of legalization I most look forward to is debunking reefer madness.  Some seniors are going to be really disappointed when they smoke up and discover it's pretty much the same as what we used to smoke.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/how-does-pot-impact-reaction-judgement-while-drivi...

"You don't feel any different having smoked?" CTV's Shannon Paterson asked.

"No, not really," he said. He added he felt less nervous after lighting up.

The software measures his speed and reaction times.

"So the baseline is he has to drive legally and he has to drive safely," Chen explained.

Gibson successfully completed the course. The verdict from the virtual reality driving instructor?

"The first one is definitely more cautious. Second time, after marijuana, you're more relaxed," Chen said.

"Your speed varies a little bit. Also the way you react changed a little bit as well."

Chen said everyone may experience a different effect, but it will still impair some of their abilities.

As a heavy user, Gibson has a high tolerance to marijuana.

"There may be some impact, but not to the point of a new user," he said.

He never feels impaired, he said, so he's not worried about getting behind the wheel.

 

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The aspect of legalization I most look forward to is debunking reefer madness.

I think the old school reefer madness ("one puff makes you go crazy and sex people to death... and dance!") has been pretty much debunked, of course.

Now we have objections like "I don't know if we're really ready" or "but what about drivers?" or "I need positive assurance that the guy who makes my submarine sandwich isn't going to be stoned out of his mind once the government encourages everyone to toke up!".

Honest-to-Gord, some days I think that a segment of the population genuinely believes that on Oct. 17 we're going to INVENT marijuana and Canadians will see it for the first time.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

What's being lost in all this is the ultimate objective. To end criminalizing Canadians for cannabis infractions. All I hear from the talking heads and the news media is this is one big Cheech and Chong skit.

Has it not dawned on anybody that cannabis prohibition was an unjust law that nobody obeyed? It was a failure.

I think these reefer madness dinosaurs clutching their pearls should focus on that.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering. Why did you delete the end of your comment. You hit a heavy truth. There are some in this country who think October 17 Canada will invent cannbis. That's a sad but true fact.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Evidently John Tory just sent a letter to the Provincial AG expressing his "concerns" about legalization -- all of them pertaining to munnee, it seems.

Funny that municipalities are losing sleep over who'll pay for all the extra policing of a legal substance that they'll apparently have to do.  I wonder, when cannabis was first criminalized, if they all whined "Who's going to pay for all the additional police officers we're going to need if we're expected to hassle every scruffy teen who might be carrying a doobie?"

Make note that first the first time in the history of Canada (or logic) it's now more expensive to police a legal substance than it was to police it when it was criminal. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Another good point. But to prohibitionists, the question is Logic.What logic?

Happily in Montreal,even police officers are allowed to smoke it (off duty of course) which I think is unique in Canada...or maybe not. This city will have the most permissive consumption laws in Canada until Legault and his asshole government makes the law clear. People will be able to smoke pot anywhere where cigarette smoking is permitted.

Sean in Ottawa

Certainly the point for me is not turning people into criminals for using this.

There are two problems that remain unresolved: the first is the use of the drug for all that ails rather than things that legitimately it helps. There are many people who will be helped but also many whose health will be worsened by the concept that this helps just about everything. The health issue -- tha thtis is still a product that is mostly bad for most people is being lost.

The second problem is that the use through smoke creates an odour unpleasant for many others. Sure, you should not be a criminal to use it but this idea that you have some human right to inflict your use on everyone else who does not want it is a problem. The stuff smells strong and even if it is the best solution for some, it is actually going to harm others and disturb even more. The right to enjoy it is in conflict with other people's right not to.

Apart from that there are many regulatory and practical issues with distribution and taxation and profit sharing (Indigenous governments have no share in the revenue). These other issues are all resolvable. The issue of it being over-sold as a health product, hopefully will be addressed with better study and communications.

The problem of some people feeling that it is their right to make everyone that shares the same space they do "enjoy" it as well is without any solution or direction at the moment. If people would accept that it is a personal choice to use -- AND to not use then ideally manners could make this work. The problem is that manners without regulation has not ever worked for anything like this. Before legislation smokers of tobacco just assumed that their right to smoke was more important than the health rights of anyone else around them -- even frequently their kids.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I don't know that it really smells objectively any worse than a similar amount of cigarette smoke, or worse yet, cigar smoke.  At any rate, I hope it's not permissible to smoke it in any enclosed or partly enclosed public space (e.g. a bus shelter).  And if some people ignore that, I won't be any more mad at them than at the hundreds of smokers I've seen do exactly the same, as though the large sign forbidding it is in some alien language.

As far as inflicting it on kids goes, the absolute WORST when I was a child was in the car, windows up.  My parents happily "hot-boxed" me that way all winter long.  So at least the kids of today don't have to worry about that happening with weed.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I think most adults are considerate and responsible enough to know that just because you can smoke weed on a busy sidewalk doesnt mean you have to. Same goes for smoking in front of kids.

We've gone thousands of years acting in a reasonably responsible way,what's going to change on Wednesday? Especially when those who are legally consuming the product are adults. Teenagers for example probably aren't considerate of others. As a matter of fact I know they are not. It doesn't seem that long ago I was a teenager and I remember how me and my friends used to behave. It's been a few decades but I remember it like it was yesterday.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I don't know that it really smells objectively any worse than a similar amount of cigarette smoke, or worse yet, cigar smoke.  At any rate, I hope it's not permissible to smoke it in any enclosed or partly enclosed public space (e.g. a bus shelter).  And if some people ignore that, I won't be any more mad at them than at the hundreds of smokers I've seen do exactly the same, as though the large sign forbidding it is in some alien language.

As far as inflicting it on kids goes, the absolute WORST when I was a child was in the car, windows up.  My parents happily "hot-boxed" me that way all winter long.  So at least the kids of today don't have to worry about that happening with weed.

You don't know?

First -- all smells are particulate. That is a scientific fact.

More to the point- tobacco smoke builds up over time. It is a strong smell. If you are within 10 metres or so you can smell it.

Pot you can smell many more metres away. If you do not want it the smell can make you want to gag. It is unpleasant and seeps from one space to another -- yes so does  tobacco but not over the same distance.

If someone is smoking tobacco, you have to be a lot closer to be aware of it, to be affected by the smell than pot. Some measures to segregate tobacco can work to some degree of success. It will stink up a house but next door won't notice it.

The smells are different and behave differently. Locally tobacco will not dissipate and will be smelled long after people use it. Pot is better in that regard -- it it does dissipate. That function means it travels to greater distance.

Perhaps tobacco smoke is heavier in the air. Which is why it is worse when you are within a few feet. Perhaps pot smoke is lighter spreads more easily which means it is worse 20 metres away...

Unless the person is really close the tobacco is not coming through your open window but the pot smoke can do that.

I have "mild" asthma. If I am near tobacco smoke I will end up needing a puffer. Away from it and I am okay. I will be affected worse from tobacco when the same distance from pot or tobacco but further away, I will be affected by the pot and not the tobacco.

Then there is a distance from that. At this distance I am not affected by the pot but the smell is very strong. I don't enjoy the smell. I do enjoy other smells. Why should my enjoyment of any other smell be second to someone else's enjoyment of pot?

I strongly believe in legalization. But there needs to be ways that people can enjoy it without subjecting it to others.

Let's be clear here: I don't mind the smell if I am walking in the park from time to time and it wafts up. I don't mind noticing it here and there when I am out and about. The problem is when I am in my more private spaces -- where I live or work for exteneded periods, I should not have to have this as a part of my new and unwanted environment. I shoudl nto then have to go and pay for a puffer if there is too much of it.

People should be able to enjoy it: but there is no guidance when it comes to the etiquete. I want pot smokers to have the right to enjoy this; I want non pot smokers to have the right to enjoy air that does not stink of that. This means that pot smokers have to find places. Maybe some public spaces should be designated for them. I think there should be establishments that do this, even some parks designated. We all have equal rights to ahve and not have. Why should only people with the means to own a home have a right to it or a right to avoid it?

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

I think most adults are considerate and responsible enough to know that just because you can smoke weed on a busy sidewalk doesnt mean you have to. Same goes for smoking in front of kids.

We've gone thousands of years acting in a reasonably responsible way,what's going to change on Wednesday? Especially when those who are legally consuming the product are adults. Teenagers for example probably aren't considerate of others. As a matter of fact I know they are not. It doesn't seem that long ago I was a teenager and I remember how me and my friends used to behave. It's been a few decades but I remember it like it was yesterday.

Are you serious?

I think Ottawa, the city I live in, is as considerate as any other place. I think a majority are considerate. I also know that it only takes a small minority to make things unpleasant for everyone else. So let's imagine a crowd of 100 people. All get to "enjoy" the weed of the one inconsiderate person while the 99 Considerate people either don't use or woudl not subject everyone else in a public place.

But while we talk about the rumours of consideration and how humans have dealt with this responsibly for so long. Yeah, imagine that -- so we did not need to create smoke free legislation becuase people were considerate? That is laughable. All the smoking bans in the world are a testament to how wrong you are.

I have been yelled at for coughing by smokers. I think that most considerate smokers found smoking to be so inconvenient that they stopped. Many who smoke now simply don't give a toss. Of course with the way pot smoke spreads at greater distances it will take fewer inconsiderates to affect more people.

I have watched rude poeple all my life: I noticed when I was young that they were not only young people. Now that I am older it is no different. Rude young people grow up to be rude older people. I am not about to shit on the younger generation that I find overall is more considerate in many ways than older people.

Pondering

Alan, that was Magoo's comment, but I wholeheartedly agree. Some people are expecting a dramatic change that simply isn't going to happen. 

The health issues are not being lost, or if they are it is the fault of the prohibitionists for exagerating. Plain packaging, rules against branding, sales controls, all point to it having negative health impacts. It's been in the news. 

As to inflicting it on others. What we are saying is that is already happening. There will be an increase in usage but it won't be dramatic. People will continue toking up at tam tams but not at the grocery store. Anywhere cigarette smoking is prohibited so too will toking be. Alcohol is legal and some people do carry mickeys or a brown paper bag but generally speaking people aren't wandering the streets drinking. 

Right now I frequently smell it walking down Mont Royal avenue. In the evening people smoke outside bars and clubs. There isn't going to be some big change.

I expect Oct 17th and the following weeks and months to be so uneventful that the media will be searching for stories to inflate. 

It will be interesting to see how things play out between Legault and the mayors. I don't think Valerie Plante will be very cooperative. As I understand it Montreal police are simply expected to show up unimpaired by anything. 

The big news is going to be, there isn't any. 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 People should be able to enjoy it: but there is no guidance when it comes to the etiquete. I want pot smokers to have the right to enjoy this; I want non pot smokers to have the right to enjoy air that does not stink of that. This means that pot smokers have to find places. Maybe some public spaces should be designated for them. I think there should be establishments that do this, even some parks designated. We all have equal rights to ahve and not have. Why should only people with the means to own a home have a right to it or a right to avoid it?

I think what will surprise you  is that nothing will change. Your neighbours won't suddenly start toking up if they aren't already. 

Which is why I made my first post. I look forward to nothing much happening. We don't have to just guess. There is evidence available:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/almost-addicted/201502/will-lega...

A large study found that rates of cannabis use among teenagers in states that legalized medical marijuana did not increase. And since Colorado fully legalized cannabis in 2013, the early reports show that rates of cannabis consumption among teens have continued to decline, which is part of a nation-wide trend.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/does-marijuana-legalization-lead-increased-use

"There is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." - The National Academy of Sciences

It isn't harmless but it is quite benign. Legalization is going to be so anticlimactic. As far as I know there aren't any big events planned. October 17th is going to be really boring. 

Sean in Ottawa

I don't mind bits while walking down the street. I think the conflicts are going to be in the homes and particularly appartment buildings.

The change will come from what we are already hearing -- legal arguments between neighbours.

I used to work as a paralegal: people used to get evicted for smoking weed and ruining their neighbours quiet enjoyment. While I was not involved in any of these cases, I saw many. Now we already are hearing that this eviction process will become a human rights argument between neighbours who want to smoke and those who want to avoid it.

No this will not happen in a day but the issue is quite predictable and I have seen very little to say which way it will go or that it can be resolved quickly. The fact that it is a health issue on both sides does not make it easier.

You are not correct to presume no change.

This is not as personal for me --as I explained my situation, I am aware of the effects but I live in a house. I have a friend in an apartment where already there is so much weed coming in that she smells it strongly all the time. Is this really fair? People are sensitive to smells, the choose them as they are in so many products and they choose to avoid them. Let's not pretend that it is not a big deal if this is constant and over-riding all other smells. It will be in some places and the legal status of the disputes has yet to be determined. Both sides will go to the wall on both enjoyment of their homes and health. The issue is a real and practical conflict that no law can get around without one side compromising on what they consider fundamental.

Pondering

You make my point for me. Your friend smells it strongly all the time even though it is illegal. Once it is legal she will still smell it all the time. No change. No it isn't fair. 

There is no need for strong smell so if it went so far as the rental board with a medical user the user could be required to use filtered ventilation. 

I've been annoyed or bothered by drunks far more than by anyone who smoked some cannabis. There are annoying inconsiderate people and some of them will use cannabis but no more than do now. 

Cannabis really isn't a big deal. Studies show no dramatic increase in consumption. We'll probably get more tourists and they might be obnoxious but not necessarily and they would tend to be in party areas downtown not hanging out in front of daycares. 

I am listening to the news and they are warning people that as cannabis becomes legal they should keep the poison control phone line handy. Okay, yes, if children eat edibles it could be a problem but parents should have that number handy more for other poisons. As poisons go cannabis is unlikely to lead to sudden death or destruction of organs and it would have to be in edible format. And yes some irresponsible people have let children find cookies and candies but parents like that are the exception just like most parents don't leave an open bottle of scotch on the coffee table with their toddler around.  You also shouldn't let your children drive. Duh.

Cannabis users come from all walks of life. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and every other profession you can think of.  Like me most users will simply carry on as usual. I won't start smoking in the hall or outdoors. I will likely only smoke in public in situations where people are drinking and it is outdoors so maybe at a bbq but even then it would depend on who was present. I'd smoke if family were present, or close friends, or if other people were smoking, but probably away from the group. Most cannabis users will just carry on as usual. 

Anywhere cigarettes can't be smoked cannabis won't be either. People have been educated on the rights of non-smokers. That isn't going to suddenly go away. 

Not only will you not see problems short term there won't be long term issues either although people will try to spin it that way if someone has an accident while stoned. 

I'm not saying there won't be any negative impact only that the positive impact will outweight the negative. Medical research will explode. We already know it treats seizures effectively. Some of the claims will be debunked others will be more modest than hoped for but there is no doubt that cannabis contains medicinal properties. Even just as a sleep aid. We are just beginning to study the cannabinoid system. 

With a legal industry they will be looking to use all the "waste" otherwise known as hemp. There is hempseed oil and hemp fabric and many other uses. 

All of this will happen on Canadian soil with Canadian workers. The rest of the world will join us faster than we might think but we still have a jump start. Our universities have courses developed already. Our medical researchers have already done some study based on the legality of medical marijuana but full legalization opens the floodgates. 

Think about it logically. If studies have shown that there is no increase in usage why would anything change signficantly? Smokers aren't going to suddenly come out of the woodwork and start smoking in people's faces. People have already been smoking in their apartments.

I predict there won't be any major issues other than an uptick in tourism which will not be wild. There are people planning retreats pairing fine cuisine with wine and cannabis. 

Legalization should help break the cheech and chong stereotype but the stigma won't lift instantly so people will still be discreet about it. 

I look forward to finding out if I am right or wrong. 

Sean in Ottawa

It is cool when a substance can make it so that you cannnot breathe when someone tells you it is not such a big deal.

Also interesting the logic that says becuase something is there that legalization won't make it worse-- especially since it means there will be a conflict between both sides claiming rights.

Not worth reading any more of this post after that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Also interesting the logic that says becuase something is there that legalization won't make it worse-- especially since it means there will be a conflict between both sides claiming rights.

I think Pondering's point -- and I agree -- is that we won't suddenly have double the number of pot smokers on Wednesday (after we add in everyone who's just been waiting for the government to give them the green light to buy an ounce of weed and a bong), nor are emboldened pot smokers going to be running around blowing smoke in people's faces just because they technically can.

As for rights, if someone's use of weed (like cigarettes, cigars, fragrance or peanut butter) is a bona fide health issue for someone else, that someone else has legal recourse, and the advantage of being the only one of the two with a formal right.

Nobody has a specific right to smoke weed, just because there's no criminal prohibition on it.  Lots of landlords and condo boards are already set to ban it in their buildings, for example, and the HRC is on board with it.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Also interesting the logic that says becuase something is there that legalization won't make it worse-- especially since it means there will be a conflict between both sides claiming rights.

I think Pondering's point -- and I agree -- is that we won't suddenly have double the number of pot smokers on Wednesday (after we add in everyone who's just been waiting for the government to give them the green light to buy an ounce of weed and a bong), nor are emboldened pot smokers going to be running around blowing smoke in people's faces just because they technically can.

As for rights, if someone's use of weed (like cigarettes, cigars, fragrance or peanut butter) is a bona fide health issue for someone else, that someone else has legal recourse, and the advantage of being the only one of the two with a formal right.

Nobody has a specific right to smoke weed, just because there's no criminal prohibition on it.  Lots of landlords and condo boards are already set to ban it in their buildings, for example, and the HRC is on board with it.

First the double the smokers is a straw man. I never said that. What I said is that where this is a problem becuase of the legal status we know which side woudl back down.

As for saying that this conflict can be resolved in law easily -- no it can't becuase it is a conflict.

Very simple -- take two people sharing a space -- one says they need it and one says it hurts them. There is no compromise. It is a real conflict.

Consider when both have mobility issues and you can't say just go to the park.

There is not enough guidance on managing the conflict here.

As for the assumption that people have rights also have recourse -- that is a pile of baloney:

RIGHTS + MONEY = RECOURSE

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Or, RIGHTS + HRC = RECOURSE.

ed'd to add:  here's OHRC weighing in.

As for the insolubility of a conflict, what do we do when someone who needs a seeing-eye dog lives right beside someone allergic to dogs?

Here's a real world example.

Worth noting that the dispute is between the tenant with an allergy and medical users -- recreational users don't even figure into the equation.

Pondering

The thing is Sean, you are assuming there will be more conflict than already exists. You are assuming that because it is illegal that has protected people who could be harmed by the secondary effects of cannabis usage. 

If it were 20 years ago you might have a point because people were smoking cigarettes all over the place. That isn't the situation any more. Non-smokers have the upper hand which is as it should be. Cigarettes are the gateway drug to smoking cannabis. New users are likely to to go edibles or vaping. 

If, once it becomes legal, the problems you foresee do develop then I would agree it is a serious concern and we need to defend the rights of people who are negatively impacted by the cannabis usage of others. 

What I'm saying is that legalization will not cause an increase in clashes between users and non-users. There will be clashes just as there are now. Cannabis being illegal did not make it easier for your neighbour to prevent others from smoking in her vicinity did it? Did they get arrested? Did she take them to court? Sue her landlord? 

It might even be easier to control nuisance behaviors. Arresting someone for a joint was a hassle and frowned upon by judges. Handing out tickets is less trouble and more lucrative. 

You are jumping to negative conclusions about legalization even though there is evidence that what you fear doesn't seem to have happened in jurisdictions that have already legalized. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Since I buy my pot from people I know and trust who have been growing for decades come the 17th nothing much changes except the potential fines are way heftier.  If you travel you will still be barred from the States if you get arrested for any infringement of our pot laws, whether its called a criminal offense or not.

We are corporatising pot not legalizing it.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Or, RIGHTS + HRC = RECOURSE.

As for the insolubility of a conflict, what do we do when someone who needs a seeing-eye dog lives right beside someone allergic to dogs?

Here's a real world example.

Worth noting that the dispute is between the tenant with an allergy and medical users -- recreational users don't even figure into the equation.

Thanks, interesting article. The obvious solution is for users to have a separate air filtration system for their unit which they pay for or they limit themselves to a room in their unit that filters air going to the rest of the unit. Some sort of modification which allows them to turn off the central system might also be needed. No usage on the balcony. The goal should be to accomodate everyone. The person negatively impacted shouldn't be the one putting towels at the bottom of her doors.

cco

alan smithee wrote:

People will be able to smoke pot anywhere where cigarette smoking is permitted.

Which isn't saying much in some places. In Halifax, in preparation for legal weed, it's now only legal to smoke or vape nicotine in nine designated outdoor locations in the whole city. Here in Quebec, Hampstead is pulling the same shit. Before long it'll only be legal to smoke if you're one of the lucky millionaires who owns your own home.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

cco wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

People will be able to smoke pot anywhere where cigarette smoking is permitted.

Which isn't saying much in some places. In Halifax, in preparation for legal weed, it's now only legal to smoke or vape nicotine in nine designated outdoor locations in the whole city. Here in Quebec, Hampstead is pulling the same shit. Before long it'll only be legal to smoke if you're one of the lucky millionaires who owns your own home.

I'm hoping the City of Montreal bans smoking exclusively where playgrounds are. We'll see. But for the record, if the city decides to go the route of Hampstead I will not be obeying that law as much as I didn't obey cannabis prohibition laws. I highly doubt I'll be alone.

This is why the federal government should have implemented a one size fits all policy for the entire country. Giving power to the provinces was a huge mistake. Even if in theory that was the fair thing to do.

Prohibit parks from pot smoking,,,I don't care. For decades people have been smoking at Mont- Royal park. I don't see that changing.

And for the record, I vape. It's kept me off of tobacco for the first time in 35 years. The anti-vaping laws are just as stupid as the likely incoming rules will be put in place once the CAQ has the power to do things. I think it's going to be a disaster.

I live with no neighbours. I'll typically blast music at all times of the day and night there is no one to disturb. If I am forced to smoke outside, I'll invite the police to try to arrest me for smoking in my own home. Try it.

As for legalization itself. It's the best thing to happen in Canada for a long time. No more criminal records. No more dealing with shady people. No more low quality smoke.No more bullshit. I'm happy with it. Corporatized or not. And as if it wasnt't already corporatized by the underworld anyway. We'll get to know how this is going to happen in the next couple of months (in Quebec that is)

Pondering

Country level would be more strict I think. Different rules in different provinces will be an excellent way of studying the impact of different frameworks. Provincially Legault is bound to pass something regressive but until then Montreal isn't planning any restrictions that don't already apply to tobacco but the buroughs are so there will be confusion. 

This is all much ado about nothing. People are going to be wondering what all the fuss was about. 

https://mtl420tours.com/collections

Get stoned while getting a massage, find a place to stay, take a tour, eat, go dancing at tam tams

Individual communities should be allowed to be somewhat more restrictive. Few places allow drinking everywhere. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

The thing is Sean, you are assuming there will be more conflict than already exists. You are assuming that because it is illegal that has protected people who could be harmed by the secondary effects of cannabis usage. 

If it were 20 years ago you might have a point because people were smoking cigarettes all over the place. That isn't the situation any more. Non-smokers have the upper hand which is as it should be. Cigarettes are the gateway drug to smoking cannabis. New users are likely to to go edibles or vaping. 

If, once it becomes legal, the problems you foresee do develop then I would agree it is a serious concern and we need to defend the rights of people who are negatively impacted by the cannabis usage of others. 

What I'm saying is that legalization will not cause an increase in clashes between users and non-users. There will be clashes just as there are now. Cannabis being illegal did not make it easier for your neighbour to prevent others from smoking in her vicinity did it? Did they get arrested? Did she take them to court? Sue her landlord? 

It might even be easier to control nuisance behaviors. Arresting someone for a joint was a hassle and frowned upon by judges. Handing out tickets is less trouble and more lucrative. 

You are jumping to negative conclusions about legalization even though there is evidence that what you fear doesn't seem to have happened in jurisdictions that have already legalized. 

You are not reading what is being said or responding to it. When you get like this it is a waste of time engaging with you.

This is not about people toking in the park - that won't change. The examples I gave were about a conflict in shared home spaces apartments etc.

The comment about ventilation systems is just plain stupid. The people that can afford those likely don't leave in such close proximity.

I am talking about the income class of people who are less likely to have an air conditioner, open their window for air in the summer and will have a neighbour whose right to smoke will conflict with their right not to.

I simply stated that there were conflicts that were going to come up with the more level legal playing field here. I am not against legalization at all but this aspect has not recieved much by way of answers.

Already lawyers are speaking about people's rights and how they will have the right to smoke at home and people nearby will have to deal with it.

But as you do some times you just truck on - ignoring what has been said - not disagreeing with it but pretending it wasn't said. This is why people get annoyed with you. Engage the issue or drop it but don't keep posting the same straw man ignoring what the other person said.

You want respect -- explain why you think that the new legal status, where people have already stated they will fight to smoke at home is not going to be a different issue for neighbours now that people can say it is a legal activity. Quite a few lawyers are talking about this yet you think they are wrong. Make like this is a conversation and say why.

cco

There are lots of conflicts in shared apartment buildings. The neighbour's baby's right to cry conflicts with my right to sleep peacefully. The other neighbour's right to cook squid conflicts with my right not to smell it.

Now, you might say those latter two rights don't actually exist, and you'd be correct. Similarly, your "right not to smoke" isn't the same thing as the right to have air free of any smells that displease you. People in lower income brackets get told to "deal with it" multiple times a day. Yes, including kids.

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
There are lots of conflicts in shared apartment buildings. The neighbour's baby's right to cry conflicts with my right to sleep peacefully. The other neighbour's right to cook squid conflicts with my right not to smell it. Now, you might say those latter two rights don't actually exist, and you'd be correct. Similarly, your "right not to smoke" isn't the same thing as the right to have air free of any smells that displease you. People in lower income brackets get told to "deal with it" multiple times a day. Yes, including kids.

There is a range from smells that don't please you to air that makes you sick. For some people it will make them sick and the conflict is clear since others cannot smoke in many places other than home.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  The comment about ventilation systems is just plain stupid. The people that can afford those likely don't leave in such close proximity. 

The article was about condos so conflicting owner rights. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  I am talking about the income class of people who are less likely to have an air conditioner, open their window for air in the summer and will have a neighbour whose right to smoke will conflict with their right not to. 

This is already happening. You mentioned a neighbour with problems while it is illegal to smoke. What was the outcome? Did the illegal status of cannabis help her deal with the issue? Was she able to involve police to stop her neighbours from smoking? You ignored my  previous questions. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I simply stated that there were conflicts that were going to come up with the more level legal playing field here. I am not against legalization at all but this aspect has not recieved much by way of answers.

And I am saying it won't make any difference. Cigarettes have been legal for a long time but that has not given tenants the right to inflict secondhand smoke on neighbours particularly those who have medical conditions. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 Already lawyers are speaking about people's rights and how they will have the right to smoke at home and people nearby will have to deal with it.

Lawyers get paid to talk. Pundits are paid to find something to talk about that people will read. The debate is more about blanket bans than individual situations. As long as I am not imposing on others to an unreasonable extent I have a right to smoke in my home. That changes if someone else is being negatively impacted and to what degree. 

Simply as a decent human being if someone living nearby told me they were allergic or even that my smoke bothered them alot I would take measures to eliminate or reduce the impact on them. I think most people are like that which explains why there aren't more clashes between smokers and non-smokers of cigarettes. 

I quit smoking cigarettes years ago because it was getting so difficult to smoke anywhere and I was a chain smoker and I got sick so took the opportunity to quit. I supported the new laws because it has made it so much more difficult to young people to become chain smokers. I went from being able to smoke in college classrooms and movie theatres to feeling like a leper denied the shelter of a doorway at 20 below. 

Not everyone respects social norms but most people don't pick their nose in public or ignore their neighbour's concerns. Most people are respectful when they smoke cigarettes and the same will be true of cannabis only there will be much less of it. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 ​You want respect -- explain why you think that the new legal status, where people have already stated they will fight to smoke at home is not going to be a different issue for neighbours now that people can say it is a legal activity. Quite a few lawyers are talking about this yet you think they are wrong. Make like this is a conversation and say why.

People have fought to maintain the right to smoke cigarettes at home and it remains legal. Medical users currently have the right to use cannabis at home. 

Unlike cigarettes no one chain smokes cannabis, not even a heavy user. Multiple users in one apartment that is poorly ventilated could definitely be problematic but my point is the legal status of cannabis hasn't make that easier to deal with. It's a tenant eviction issue and cannabis being legal is not going to give people the right to inflict it on neighbours. 

What you are arguing is that the change in legal status will give cannabis users extra rights to smoke despite it's impact on other people. That will, in turn, reduce the right to legal recourse of people who are negatively impacted.

I'm arguing that isn't the case. Cannabis being legal isn't the same as having a religious right or a right against gender discrimination. Smoking cannabis isn't becoming a human right. 

The use of medical cannabis is a right because it is a health issue. Even so that right does not take precedence over the health of neigbours who are negatively impacted. The article pointed out that the preferred solution is to accomodate both. 

I am in social housing and they are considering eventually doing an alternate floors thing in buildings while grandfathering anyone already in apartments but for the moment they aren't doing anything because there isn't a problem. I have very occasionally smelled cigarette smoke in the hallway but it is rare. 

It's just my opinion. Maybe I will be proven wrong and legalization will cause difficulties for people who don't want to be exposed for medical or other reasons. 

Right now I smell it walking down Mont Royal and St Laurent but most in the evening and outside clubs. On Mont Royal I occasionally catch a whif but even at tam tams it isn't clouds of it. People are discreet. 

There will be conflicts but they will not be measurably greater than they already are. People are not losing the right to protect themselves. 

Circling back to my question. Has the illegality of cannabis helped your friend prevent her neighbours from using it? Has she reported them to police?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  The comment about ventilation systems is just plain stupid. The people that can afford those likely don't leave in such close proximity. 

The article was about condos so conflicting owner rights. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  I am talking about the income class of people who are less likely to have an air conditioner, open their window for air in the summer and will have a neighbour whose right to smoke will conflict with their right not to. 

This is already happening. You mentioned a neighbour with problems while it is illegal to smoke. What was the outcome? Did the illegal status of cannabis help her deal with the issue? Was she able to involve police to stop her neighbours from smoking? You ignored my  previous questions. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I simply stated that there were conflicts that were going to come up with the more level legal playing field here. I am not against legalization at all but this aspect has not recieved much by way of answers.

And I am saying it won't make any difference. Cigarettes have been legal for a long time but that has not given tenants the right to inflict secondhand smoke on neighbours particularly those who have medical conditions. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 Already lawyers are speaking about people's rights and how they will have the right to smoke at home and people nearby will have to deal with it.

Lawyers get paid to talk. Pundits are paid to find something to talk about that people will read. The debate is more about blanket bans than individual situations. As long as I am not imposing on others to an unreasonable extent I have a right to smoke in my home. That changes if someone else is being negatively impacted and to what degree. 

Simply as a decent human being if someone living nearby told me they were allergic or even that my smoke bothered them alot I would take measures to eliminate or reduce the impact on them. I think most people are like that which explains why there aren't more clashes between smokers and non-smokers of cigarettes. 

I quit smoking cigarettes years ago because it was getting so difficult to smoke anywhere and I was a chain smoker and I got sick so took the opportunity to quit. I supported the new laws because it has made it so much more difficult to young people to become chain smokers. I went from being able to smoke in college classrooms and movie theatres to feeling like a leper denied the shelter of a doorway at 20 below. 

Not everyone respects social norms but most people don't pick their nose in public or ignore their neighbour's concerns. Most people are respectful when they smoke cigarettes and the same will be true of cannabis only there will be much less of it. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 ​You want respect -- explain why you think that the new legal status, where people have already stated they will fight to smoke at home is not going to be a different issue for neighbours now that people can say it is a legal activity. Quite a few lawyers are talking about this yet you think they are wrong. Make like this is a conversation and say why.

People have fought to maintain the right to smoke cigarettes at home and it remains legal. Medical users currently have the right to use cannabis at home. 

Unlike cigarettes no one chain smokes cannabis, not even a heavy user. Multiple users in one apartment that is poorly ventilated could definitely be problematic but my point is the legal status of cannabis hasn't make that easier to deal with. It's a tenant eviction issue and cannabis being legal is not going to give people the right to inflict it on neighbours. 

What you are arguing is that the change in legal status will give cannabis users extra rights to smoke despite it's impact on other people. That will, in turn, reduce the right to legal recourse of people who are negatively impacted.

I'm arguing that isn't the case. Cannabis being legal isn't the same as having a religious right or a right against gender discrimination. Smoking cannabis isn't becoming a human right. 

The use of medical cannabis is a right because it is a health issue. Even so that right does not take precedence over the health of neigbours who are negatively impacted. The article pointed out that the preferred solution is to accomodate both. 

I am in social housing and they are considering eventually doing an alternate floors thing in buildings while grandfathering anyone already in apartments but for the moment they aren't doing anything because there isn't a problem. I have very occasionally smelled cigarette smoke in the hallway but it is rare. 

It's just my opinion. Maybe I will be proven wrong and legalization will cause difficulties for people who don't want to be exposed for medical or other reasons. 

Right now I smell it walking down Mont Royal and St Laurent but most in the evening and outside clubs. On Mont Royal I occasionally catch a whif but even at tam tams it isn't clouds of it. People are discreet. 

There will be conflicts but they will not be measurably greater than they already are. People are not losing the right to protect themselves. 

Circling back to my question. Has the illegality of cannabis helped your friend prevent her neighbours from using it? Has she reported them to police?

It has helped people deal with this in the past. I ignored your question because you ignored the fact that I had alsready provided an answer: as a paralegal I saw many of these cases. Some were landlords others tenants complaining about what is now a protected activity.

As for my friend this issue has increased significantly as enforcement and the culture has changed as we move to legalization -- it is a progression we have seen that show no signs of letting up.

You ignored the point about the distance pot smokes goes versus tobacco. You can smoke next door without it affecting neighbours -- that is not true about pot.

As for your statement that people are decent and that we can all count on them being discreet -- let me respond when I finish laughing at you. After all I already pointed out that 99 decent people can be disturbed by one who is not -- unless there is some kind of enforecement regulation.

As for the alternate floors thing -- this might work so long as the windows don't open. Might be better to have alternate buildings and a public policy that allows those who want weed help moving to a place that is so designated and one who does not help moving away from one that is. These are practical questions due to conflicts that I have said ought to be resolved. This is not me taking a stand on either side of this. I also have a friend who has had cancer and used it -- she is now (we hope cancer free) but how she manages in her building may be different than everyone. Was not easy.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I get really tired of people who oppose legalization over the smell. I find the smell of egg sandwiches offensive. Should we crimninally prohibit  people for possessing them?

As I mentioned in a previous comment,the prime objective is to end criminalizing Canadians over marijuana infractions.

It was an unjust law that nobody obeyed. It will also make it much more difficult for teens to get their hands on it like they can do now and it will make a major dent to the underworld.

It was supposed to happen in the 70's. IMO, it's about time and we could not wait any longer.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You ignored the point about the distance pot smokes goes versus tobacco. You can smoke next door without it affecting neighbours -- that is not true about pot.

Pot smoke because it is not laced with the carcinogenic chemicals that cigarettes have in fact dissipates faster and does not linger on furniture and other things as long as cigarettes. I would request you post some kind of studies that show the veracity of your statement. Maybe if pot smoke does travel further it is because it does not attach itself to solid matter as easily as the chemicals in cigarettes. I find the idea that second hand pot smoke is somehow worse than second hand tobacco smoke to be truly bizarre. Where I live my neighbors wood stoves are a toxic hazard for anyone with respiratory disease. I often hear people talk about that but never have I heard anyone complain about the pot smoke in our town.

Unfortunately now that we are moving to corporate pot one can expect chemicals in some of those brands within a few years so pot smoke might become as bad as tobacco smoke.

There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous. Many of these chemicals also are found in consumer products, but these products have warning labels. While the public is warned about the danger of the poisons in these products, there is no such warning for the toxins in tobacco smoke. Here are a few of the chemicals in tobacco smoke and other places they are found:

Acetone – found in nail polish remover

Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye

Ammonia – a common household cleaner

Arsenic – used in rat poison Benzene – found in rubber cement

Butane – used in lighter fluid

Cadmium – active component in battery acid

Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes

Formaldehyde – embalming fluid

Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid Lead – used in batteries

Naphthalene – an ingredient in mothballs

Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel

Nicotine – used as insecticide Tar – material for paving roads

Toluene - used to manufacture paint

cco

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unfortunately now that we are moving to corporate pot one can expect chemicals in some of those brands within a few years so pot smoke might become as bad as tobacco smoke.

There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous. Many of these chemicals also are found in consumer products, but these products have warning labels. While the public is warned about the danger of the poisons in these products, there is no such warning for the toxins in tobacco smoke. Here are a few of the chemicals in tobacco smoke and other places they are found:

Acetone – found in nail polish remover

Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye

Ammonia – a common household cleaner

Arsenic – used in rat poison Benzene – found in rubber cement

Butane – used in lighter fluid

Cadmium – active component in battery acid

Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes

Formaldehyde – embalming fluid

Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid Lead – used in batteries

Naphthalene – an ingredient in mothballs

Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel

Nicotine – used as insecticide Tar – material for paving roads

Toluene - used to manufacture paint

Chemicals sure sound scary, don't they? And most people don't have basic chemistry knowledge, or know the difference between a trace of something and a lethal dose, so the lists of "toxic chemicals found in tobacco smoke" easily conjure up images of Snidely Whiplash and his team of lab-coated assassins pouring corporate-branded poison into cigarettes and, soon, weed, which would be perfectly safe as long as people just grew it at home.

Except most of those chemicals are simple byproducts of burning organic materials. Just to pick the first one, acetone is indeed nail polish remover, but it's also produced in your body in the process of making fat and sugar. It's just a hydrocarbon. Don't drink a bottle of it, or you'll have a bad time, but you also literally can't live without creating it.

None of this is to say cigarettes are safe. They're not. But this kind of scientifically ignorant hype is a poison all on its own. You breathe oxygen over 20,000 times a day – a highly flammable chemical that killed the Apollo 1 astronauts! Don't let oxygen happen to you! Call your MP and demand a ban!

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You ignored the point about the distance pot smokes goes versus tobacco. You can smoke next door without it affecting neighbours -- that is not true about pot.

Pot smoke because it is not laced with the carcinogenic chemicals that cigarettes have in fact dissipates faster and does not linger on furniture and other things as long as cigarettes. I would request you post some kind of studies that show the veracity of your statement. Maybe if pot smoke does travel further it is because it does not attach itself to solid matter as easily as the chemicals in cigarettes. I find the idea that second hand pot smoke is somehow worse than second hand tobacco smoke to be truly bizarre. Where I live my neighbors wood stoves are a toxic hazard for anyone with respiratory disease. I often hear people talk about that but never have I heard anyone complain about the pot smoke in our town. Unfortunately now that we are moving to corporate pot one can expect chemicals in some of those brands within a few years so pot smoke might become as bad as tobacco smoke.

There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous. Many of these chemicals also are found in consumer products, but these products have warning labels. While the public is warned about the danger of the poisons in these products, there is no such warning for the toxins in tobacco smoke. Here are a few of the chemicals in tobacco smoke and other places they are found:

Acetone – found in nail polish remover

Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye

Ammonia – a common household cleaner

Arsenic – used in rat poison Benzene – found in rubber cement

Butane – used in lighter fluid

Cadmium – active component in battery acid

Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes

Formaldehyde – embalming fluid

Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid Lead – used in batteries

Naphthalene – an ingredient in mothballs

Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel

Nicotine – used as insecticide Tar – material for paving roads

Toluene - used to manufacture paint

Cool great answer to somethng I never said.

I did not say it is worse. I said it travels further, Perhaps, I speculated becuase it is lighter -- don't know why.

Point is it bothers people at greater distances.

I even said that up close certainly cigarette smoke is more of a problem.

Not sure why there are such denials here that pot bothers people at distance but I guess this stuff is really a desire to be with the program in saying how great the substance is. The problem with these denials is that this seems to be part of the problem with the pretence that there are no conflicts between people who use and who do not use and that this can increase with legalization...

As I said before I am not against legalization but there could be more leadership and proactivity in policy with how to manage the conflicts.

The answer I guess is found in the desire to deny these issues to the point that no policies are possible.

Like many areas of public policy anyone asking for rational policies are buried by those who do not want legalization and those who advocate for a denial that there are ANY issues with managing legalization.

Both ends sacrifice the middle in order to believe their advocacy fantasies.

Yes there needs to be something more than to hope for people to be decent and polite and it is not enough to tell people not to be bothered and just put up with it.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 I did not say it is worse. I said it travels further, Perhaps, I speculated becuase it is lighter -- don't know why.  

Are there any studies illustrating that? 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 Not sure why there are such denials here that pot bothers people at distance but I guess this stuff is really a desire to be with the program in saying how great the substance is. The problem with these denials is that this seems to be part of the problem with the pretence that there are no conflicts between people who use and who do not use and that this can increase with legalization...  

I an others are not saying that it isn't possible or plausible that there will be conflicts resulting from legalization. We are saying it isn't a foregone conclusion. We generally don't pass laws on the assumption that some problem will occur. We wait for the problem to occur then formulate a law that deals with it if need be. 

Already the laws for legalization are ridiculously draconian. There is tons of fear-mongeuring. From the perspective of a user all the hype is really irritating when alcohol and tobbaco are so much more harmful and addictive and deadly. I have had it with all the serious toned reports about "what might happen".  

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 ​Like many areas of public policy anyone asking for rational policies are buried by those who do not want legalization and those who advocate for a denial that there are ANY issues with managing legalization.

Not at all. There are many strict laws being applied as it is. This is a very draconian method of legalization already. Entire buildings are trying to make it against policy, both landloards and condominium boards. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 ​Yes there needs to be something more than to hope for people to be decent and polite and it is not enough to tell people not to be bothered and just put up with it.  

There are existing protections. It is far from a free for all. There is no evidence that problems will increase with legalization. You are making that assumption. Maybe you are right and there will be problems and if there are problems then I will certainly agree that laws or bylaws need to be changed. I would want them to be designed to address the specific issue rather than being overly broad to address issues that may never come up. If they do come up they will be addressed provincially or municipally. 

Right now I think municipalities are erring on the side of caution not liberty.  Someone took a poll of people who would be willing to buy a house pot had been grown in and it was 52% or something. It's fear monguering. Growing a few plants is not the same as having a grow-op. So to me there has been an over-abundance of caution not insufficient regulation. 

Apparently Montreal police are starting road checks to measure the impact but it doesn't seem to occur to them that to measure the impact they would need a baseline. 

I maintain the biggest news will be nothing changing but the media will try to hype whatever happens. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

At any rate, here in Ontario (and anywhere east of us) the genie is out of the bottle.  The prairies soon enough, and BC before NL even wakes up tomorrow.  Something I didn't think would ever really happen, happened.

NorthReport

Congratulations to the pot enthusiasts - enjoy the celebratory day today!

Marijuana is legal everywhere across Canada now

https://globalnews.ca/news/4559085/marijuana-legalization-canada-midnigh...

Tenants however are receiving landlord notices in the Lower Mainland stating a non-smoking building means exactly that, no cigars and no pot. They are also stating that it is presently unlawful to grow cannabis in the residential unit, which will probably be challenged in the courts, sooner rather than later. 

NorthReport

Woo! Hoo!

Cannabis goes up for sale online as marijuana gets legalized in B.C.

Recreational pot sales officially started at 12 a.m. on Wednesday through the provincial government’s online portal — www.bccannabisstores.com.

https://vancouversun.com/cannabis/cannabis-news/cannabis-goes-up-for-sal...

SeekingAPolitic...

I way I see things, I was trained as a criminologist at the University of Windsor so I have an idea about policy criminalizing those that use and find the future prospects to be curtailed. I remember seeing the numbers about of someone to jail rather going get housing and treatment.  The cost saving was amazing I am number person, the whole idea of punishment so much more expensive.  

Total Spending Average cost per Inmate % of Total

Salaries and employee benefits 1,102,774,000  78,188.74  70%

Utilities, materials and supplies 136,852,000  9,703.06  9%

Amortization of tangible capital assets 127,889,000  9,067.57  8%

Professional and special services 96,746,000  6,859.47  6%

Payment in lieu of taxes 35,063,000  2,486.03  2%

Machinery and equipment 28,779,000  2,040.48  2%

Repairs and maintenance 27,693,000  1,963.49  2%

All other expenses 17,891,000 1,268.51 1%

Total $1,573,687,000     Per Person $109,971 

 These Info was available at Stats Can.

So the cost locking up so very expensive compared to alternatives.  

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The government is going to make a mint. At the Quebec dispensary the prices are a tad expensive which is not the objective. But it was packed. I stood there from 6:30 to 10:00. There was already about 20 people ahead of me and by the time I got in the line up was down the street. This was at St-Hubert. Apparently the downtown dispensary was much crazier. Im glad I went with where I went.

A lot of people are going to make a lot of money. I honestly don't give a fuck if the market is corporatized. This was a day I thought I'd never see.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I did not say it is worse. I said it travels further, Perhaps, I speculated becuase it is lighter -- don't know why.

Point is it bothers people at greater distances.

I even said that up close certainly cigarette smoke is more of a problem.

Not sure why there are such denials here that pot bothers people at distance but I guess this stuff is really a desire to be with the program in saying how great the substance is. The problem with these denials is that this seems to be part of the problem with the pretence that there are no conflicts between people who use and who do not use and that this can increase with legalization...

The problem is that at the range that you are talking about it is not a toxic substance compared to car exhaust or a wood stove and frankly I find the smell of overused cooking oil carry's further and is far more obnoxious and probably more toxic as well. Legalization might give some prickly people one more reason to complain about their neighbours but frankly I don't see that as a human rights issue. Nothing new is required to deal with the fact that you and others do not like the smell of pot. Any medical issues have already arisen from cigarette use and we have systems in place to deal with real conflicts that arise from those types of problems.

gadar

alan smithee wrote:

The government is going to make a mint. At the Quebec dispensary the prices are a tad expensive which is not the objective. But it was packed. I stood there from 6:30 to 10:00. There was already about 20 people ahead of me and by the time I got in the line up was down the street. This was at St-Hubert. Apparently the downtown dispensary was much crazier. Im glad I went with where I went.

A lot of people are going to make a lot of money. I honestly don't give a fuck if the market is corporatized. This was a day I thought I'd never see.

Cheers, enjoy my friend. A good day indeed.

MegB

Where there is no combustion, there is no particulate spreading or marijuana smell. Vaping is the way to go to avoid the issues of second hand smoke and smell (some vaping devices emit no discernable odour while others do, just not the usual smell associated with pot smoking). Car exhaust makes me feel physically ill and the effects it has both on the environment and personal health are well documented (I say this as a reluctant car owner and operator). Yet combustion engines abound and their toxic effects are ubiquitous to the point of contributing to the destruction of the planet. As a pedestrian I am constantly bombarded by offensive odours - some deleterious to health, others simply annoying. You cannot police smell but you can protect people's health through legislation, if there is the political will to do so.

I've been a pot consumer for more than forty years, though not regularly until a few years ago. It's fantastic for chronic pain and some strains are particularly good for sleep issues and anxiety (far healthier and more effective than pharmaceuticals). For those who just like to get high, it's habit forming but not addictive in the sense that alcohol and opioids are addictive.  People don't smoke pot and then go on murderous rampages. People get drunk and do, yet alcohol consumption has been completely acceptable, for the most part, for millennia. Criminalizing marijuana was a stupid and expensive idea and its end is long overdue.

Legalizing pot is a non-issue for me. As a novelty, yes, but apart from being able to legally grow my own - much like making my own wine, which I'm considering doing again -  it changes nothing. I do not plan on participating in the capitalist corporatization of pot, though I do support it being sold as a controlled substance, much in the way that alcohol is currently sold in Ontario via the LCBO. I won't be buying it online either for a bunch of reasons, but mostly because I don't shop online for anything. 

 

lagatta4

Meg, I'm also very averse to shopping online, but I think I'll give in to order a garment from this Toronto undergarment company. But I don't have a credit card, and they don't take either debit or cheques.

knix.ca Yes, they do come across as too trendy and faux-feminist, but they have comfortable and supportive undergarments, and a design I need.

I've also made my own wine. No room for that now, alas.

cco

lagatta, you can get prepaid cards at the post office. I don't have a credit card either, but the prepaid ones enable me to do anything I can't do with Interac or cash.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..because i have not had debt in years i had no credit score. with no credit score you can't get a credit card. so i looked at prepaid card. all including the post office have transaction fees. these fees can become heafty when they can get  compounded in a transaction. i found bmo offered a prepaid card for about $7 a year. no other fees unless excpect currency exchange. 55+ get a free bank account so i created an account there and just for the prepaid card. i keep minimal money there and etransfer $ there when i want to buy something online. the etransfer costs $1 at my credit union. you decide how much. i have been doing this for 3 yrs.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If you don't want a prepaid card -- for weed, undergarments or whatever -- ask the retailer whether they have any trouble with Visa gift cards.  There are no fees or charges, and you can get them anywhere gift cards are sold (drugstores, grocery stores, convenience stores, etc.).

By the look of it, the CP reloadable Visa charges FIFTEEN BUCKS when you make a purchase, and three dollars just to add funds.  That's MoneyMart prices.

Pondering

I ordered from 28grams and was satisfied with the price. 100$. I'll check out the shop. How was the selection Alan?

Pondering

You can get a prepaid credit card at a bank. 28Grams accepted e-transfers which you can do from a bank account. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I thought I'd take a peek at the Ontario Cannabis Store official website, and it's pretty funny.

Perhaps they want it to look like other, familiar online shopping sites like Amazon, and so they have a picture to accompany each product in their list of weeds.  But of course this is Ontario, and an actual image of some now-legal marijuana could be enticing to someone, so they just show the box it comes in.

And it's not even a photo of the box.  It's what looks like a computer generated image of the box, with each strain's name Photoshopped on.

Pretty exciting

Wow.  "Shark Shock" looks pretty awesome! 

Pondering

Quebec prices are lower but they ran out of the best stuff already which is around 10 a gram. Looks like I will be growing eventually if the price/selection doesn't improve. I think it will though. I'm expecting 28grams to make an attempt. 

Pages