Doug Ford Era

215 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned

If the Liberals should get party status, why not the Greens?

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Another point is that parties should not be hypocrites -- that gets noticed. The NDP provincially should declare support to the Liberals for party status otherwise their position on PR looks like opportunism only. In a PR election the Liberals would have party status -- it is a freak of FPTP that they do not have it now. As I said before, I am fine with them conditioning this on Liberal support for PR but the offer should be made.

Agreed. Particularly since they're only one short.

It's bad optics for the NDP to be on record as supporting denial of party status to the Liberals.  Do they think "progressive" voters will be wooed by this show of partisanship?

It's also bad strategy.  It lets Ford look reasonable if he gives it to them.  If he doesn't, it gives the Liberals a rallying cry to win the next by-election.  Do they think they think the path to winning the next election is winning those Liberal votes that didn't go their way this time?  Is that reasonable?  Will that help?

It's also poor hindsight.  The reason we have Andrea Horwath is because Dalton McGuinty denied the NDP party status and give the NDP a raison d'etre in that 2004 by-election.

I find her to be personally compelling but incredibly, jsut so incredibly tone-deaf.  It must be bad advice.

I agree on all points.

Hypocrisy only looks like a good short term strategy -- apart from being morally indefensible it is always bad strategy.

As well if the NDP does believe in PR and is not just likeing it for opportunistic reasons, a position like this would support the argument for PR as much as failing to take it will compromise it.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Another point is that parties should not be hypocrites -- that gets noticed. The NDP provincially should declare support to the Liberals for party status otherwise their position on PR looks like opportunism only. In a PR election the Liberals would have party status -- it is a freak of FPTP that they do not have it now. As I said before, I am fine with them conditioning this on Liberal support for PR but the offer should be made.

Agreed. Particularly since they're only one short.

It's bad optics for the NDP to be on record as supporting denial of party status to the Liberals.  Do they think "progressive" voters will be wooed by this show of partisanship?

 

This is to be expected of the NDP. When they get power, they do not want to share it with anybody. They exclude unknowns from their cliques and cabals, and see no reason to justify this kind of behaviour. Ideological purity must be maintained, subject to change without notice. After a while they piss everyone off who thought they were friends, and they go down the toilet.

JKR

voice of the damned wrote:

If the Liberals should get party status, why not the Greens?

Because 1 in 5 voters voted Liberal while only 1 in 21 voted Green?

cco

So there should be some kind of rule, then? Perhaps a threshold below which a party doesn't have official party status?

In that case, what's wrong with the existing one? Other than that it disqualifies the poor Liberals this time?

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:

If the Liberals should get party status, why not the Greens?

Because 1 in 5 voters voted Liberal while only 1 in 21 voted Green?

If I were designing a threshold within PR I probably would have it low so truthfully I would give party status to the Greens. That said, I don't think any reasonable definition of a proportional representation model would ignore something around 20%.

I would give it to both but the threshold argument becomes ridiculous if you support PR and then suggest that threshold should be as high as 20%.

What is wrong with the NDP not being hypocritical? Do we believe in PR? If we do then we cannot fail to support a change here.

It is also a fact that this can some day serve to help the NDP in the future as much as it could hurt it -- but this should be principled and not guided by immediate self interest. Saying it is Ford's choice without offering an opinion has got to be the biggest cop-out. After all you could say that about every policy in government. A political party in the legislature has got to have an opinion. It is glaring that the NDP is not sharing one because it is trying not to answer which side it is on here. That is not a good look.

JKR

cco wrote:
So there should be some kind of rule, then? Perhaps a threshold below which a party doesn't have official party status?

In that case, what's wrong with the existing one? Other than that it disqualifies the poor Liberals this time?

I think what's wrong is that a large section of voters are not receiving equitable democratic representation.

I think any party that receives at least 10% of the votes should be considered an official party.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Do they think "progressive" voters will be wooed by this show of partisanship?

Seeing as the electorate was so clearly eager to stick it to the Liberals, I can't actually see it doing any harm.  If "progressives" want to make a big thing of a threshold, I suppose they can, but if we ever end up with a PR model, either federally or provincially, they'd better have a good speech ready for why the Christian Authority Party, that missed the PR threshold by a fraction of a percent, doesn't similarly deserve a seat.

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What is wrong with the NDP not being hypocritical? Do we believe in PR? If we do then we cannot fail to support a change here.

How does that follow? If PR were in place, the Liberals would've won enough seats to have official party status. It's not (in large part thanks to them campaigning against it), so now we should pretend they did, even when they didn't extend the same courtesy to the NDP?

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What is wrong with the NDP not being hypocritical? Do we believe in PR? If we do then we cannot fail to support a change here.

How does that follow? If PR were in place, the Liberals would've won enough seats to have official party status. It's not (in large part thanks to them campaigning against it), so now we should pretend they did, even when they didn't extend the same courtesy to the NDP?

We say that we believe in PR - that representation should be proportional. How can we in that context draw the line at party status where the party achieved 19.5% of the vote? If we believe they ought to have had about 20% of the seats, as we say, then it follows that this is at least enough of a manadate from the people for them to be recognized as a party.

Principles should not apply only when they are convenient.

Now I did say that given the Liberals did not support the NDP when they were in the same position, it would be reasonable to demand that the Liberals endorse PR as a condition of our support.

However, it is time that we stop pretending that this principle is just for the parties' interests. This is about respecting voters as well. A principled position on this shows respect for what we believe in and the voters.

voice of the damned

Sean:

So, back to Magoo's example, if a party in a FPTP election doesn't win any seats, but still gets enough votes to have won seats in an alternate-reality where the election was PR, should they be awarded seats? Let's say that the party is commited to PR, just to meet your other criterion.

 

Ciabatta2

Party status in FPTP should be based on a two fold test - a) a seat in the leg, b) level of popular vote support.  (Not sure what the level should be, maybe 5 maybe 10 percent.)

Meet those two tests and you get party status, IMHO.

If I were the NDP, I would have gone on record supporting party status to both of the parties as a show of electroal strategy masked as "progressive" (LOLwhateverthatmeans) goodwill.

progressive17 wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Another point is that parties should not be hypocrites -- that gets noticed. The NDP provincially should declare support to the Liberals for party status otherwise their position on PR looks like opportunism only. In a PR election the Liberals would have party status -- it is a freak of FPTP that they do not have it now. As I said before, I am fine with them conditioning this on Liberal support for PR but the offer should be made.

Agreed. Particularly since they're only one short.

It's bad optics for the NDP to be on record as supporting denial of party status to the Liberals.  Do they think "progressive" voters will be wooed by this show of partisanship?

 

This is to be expected of the NDP. When they get power, they do not want to share it with anybody. They exclude unknowns from their cliques and cabals, and see no reason to justify this kind of behaviour. Ideological purity must be maintained, subject to change without notice. After a while they piss everyone off who thought they were friends, and they go down the toilet.

Your comment has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.  Is there something you wanted to respond to in my post?  My post is about the strategic value of supporting party status.

Otherwise, no sweat, I will ignore as just a random partisan smear.

MapleInTheEye

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

MapleInTheEye wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Fuck the Liberals - don’t give them an inch! They are no friend of the NDP
">https://mobile.twitter.com/tomfraserhfx/status/1005184595053117440

As a voter who will swing between Liberal and NDP depending on who is more likely to win the specific riding or election I'm participating in, I will never understand EITHER the NDP supporter nor the Liberal supporter who wants to do the other party in. Liberals who want to see the NDP fail and NDP who see the Liberals as more evil than the conservative option are self-defeating progressives. Splitting the left is what enables those who defeat progressive policy.

Ok here is the irony. Splitting the left defeats progressive policy. But uniting the left also defeats progressive policy. I explained this before.

When there is only one party left of the Conservatives it will be Liberal in policy even if it is NDP in name. The reason is that parties reflect political context and their supporters. If the Liberals vanished, their supporters would go NDP and make a party that is much more to the centre. If you want a progressive NDP you want the Liberals to take up the members who are less progressive.

If you want an NDP government in more than name then you need a more even split between the three parties and the NDP may win once in a while -- if they occupy a too restricted space they will not get elected.

Interestingly the NDP might influence policy when not getting elected than by having the Liberals disappear and the NDP move to the centre with the new members. In this scenario they become the centre party with no party to the left of them pushing them.

So best option is three-way tie with the NDP winning some times, or balance of power, second best is NDP at least strong enough to make the Liberals sometimes take their policies, worse is and NDP without a Liberal party and lastly a Liberal party without the NDP. The last two are not much different.

****

Another point is that parties should not be hypocrites -- that gets noticed. The NDP provincially should declare support to the Liberals for party status otherwise their position on PR looks like opportunism only. In a PR election the Liberals would have party status -- it is a freak of FPTP that they do not have it now. As I said before, I am fine with them conditioning this on Liberal support for PR but the offer should be made.

 

-----------------

I think keeping the Liberals and NDP separate is healthy for democracy, so you won't find disagreement here. There was a moment after 2011 where I thought merging the NDP and Liberals was a good idea. The logic was that I thought, genuinely, that the Liberal party has actually got to a point where it couldn't come back and adding that extra 5 or 10% of support to the NDP might be better electorally.

But I think time has proven a steep election loss does not mean a party is gone forever.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Principles should not apply only when they are convenient.

Then the NDP should have voiced their opposition to the existing threshold BEFORE the election.

To deny the Liberals official status isn't "convenient" -- it's just the existing threshold, just like 100kph is the existing speed limit, or 0.08 is the existing threshold for DWI.

To suggest that the Liberals should be exempt from the existing threshold solely because "they came so close" when that threshold seemed fair and resonable prior to the election is actually more "convenient".  And of course it then leads to the question of "what if they fell short by two?" or "what if they fell short by three?" -- effectively leading (hopefully) to the threshold we'd actually be willing to respect.

If we all agree (after the election) that seven seats is sufficient, what happens if the Cons get six in the next election?

I've many times been accused of being slavishly obsessed with "rules and regulations", but like CCO I kind of wonder why we would have them if we don't want to respect them.  What's the point of saying that we need to be 16 years old to drive if we're then going to entertain arguments about some very responsible 14 year old who wants to drive? 

We all want exceptions for us.  That's known as exceptionalism.  "This isn't like all the other cases; this is a SPECIAL case!!!"

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Has anybody heard yet how many of the 29 PC candidates who were under investigation in the "405"  illegal personal data-sharing situation got elected?  Asking because it occurs to me that, if more than thirteen of them were and if their elections were all invalidated, would that essentially force a new provincial election?  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Why wouldn't it mean 13+ byelections?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Why wouldn't it mean 13+ byelections?

What I was thinking(and it might require MORE PC Mpp's to have their elections nullified than that to make my scenario work) is that it would create a situation in which Doug would no longer have enough MPP's to defeat a no-confidence motion.  It could mean 13 by-elections(which would be a kind of weird echo to the early Canadian parliamentary tradition of everyone appointed to the cabinet of an incoming government resigning their seats and then fighting for them again in byelections), now that you'd think of it, but it's also possible that Doug might decide that his parliamentary situation(assuming he couldn't get the lieutanant governor to prorogue the legislature until the byelections were held) was too precarious to try and stay on with all of those seats vacant.

Were the "13 byelection" scenario to occur, it could be one of the rare situations in which "strategic voting" could actually be justified. You'd have whichever non-PC party finished third not nominate a candidate, with a single "stop-Doug" candidate facing the PC candidate, and then with the provision that the first thing each of those MPPs would do, once elected, was support a no-confidence motion, then support the appointment of a temporary NDP-Lib-Green coalition government for the sole purpose of passing an electoral reform act, and which would then call a snap election using whichever proportional or semi-proportional model(the West German compromise on this might work in this situation)to elect the next legislature.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Fair enough.  Fingers crossed. 

robbie_dee

If 28 PC MPPs were removed from or otherwise vacated office, the remaining seats in the legislature would be distributed as follows: 48 PC, 40 NDP, 7 Liberal 1 Green, with 28 vacancies. With presumably one PC holding the nonvoting Speaker's chair (leaving 47 voting PCs), the government would be susceptible to falling on a nonconfidence vote by 48-47. This seems unlikely to happen.

If 14 PC MPPs were removed from office and replaced by "United Opposition (UO)" MPs, the new distribution of seats would be 62 PC, 62 Opposition (40 NDP, 7 Liberal, 1 Green 14 UO). Again assuming a PC speaker, the government could fall on a 62-61 nonconfidence motion if all Opposition MPs voted.

I wouldn't bet on this either, but stranger things have happened I suppose.

NDPP

"Had a great time kicking off Canada Day Weekend at the 159th Queen's Plate with [US] Ambassador Kelley Craft...and [Israel] Ambassador Nimrod Barkan."

https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1013150811919020032

Doug the slug with 'All-hat-no-cattle' US amb and Israel's Nimrod, already workin' it for the Jewish state.

NDPP

Trudeau Heads To Toronto To Meet With Doug Ford, Rally Local Liberals

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/07/05/ipolitics-am-trudeau-heads-to-toronto-to...

"Later this afternoon, Trudeau will hold a private session with the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs..."

WWWTT

I still believe that some of the appeal that Doug Ford yielded was credited to his passed brother Rob. 

Smoking crack public urinating drunken stupors reading the newspaper while driving on the  dvp et etc gave the Ford brothers the classic circus freak side show persona! 

Robs popularity could be compared to Rob himself in a drunken stupor stampeding over common sense trying to understand how people could be drawn to train wrecks. 

Its possible that when Ontario voters realize that Doug isn’t a circus freak side show protégés like rob was, he’s gone. 

NorthReport

And some of Ford’s appeal is directly attributable to the stupidity of the Liberals. Check out this tragic scene at Local 183’s 2018 Family Day celebration

https://mobile.twitter.com/joemancinelli

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Is LiUna a labour union?  Rolling out the red carpet for Ford?

NorthReport

Labourers International Union of North America

bekayne

NorthReport

Liberal stupidity brought this on and as we have just seen Liberals paid the supreme price for their brain-dead policies. Too bad!

NorthReport

I suppose we should stop calling them the Liberal Party any more seeing as they are no longer recognized as a political party in Ontario.

WWWTT

NorthReport wrote:

And some of Ford’s appeal is directly attributable to the stupidity of the Liberals. Check out this tragic scene at Local 183’s 2018 Family Day celebration

https://mobile.twitter.com/joemancinelli

Doug Ford isn’t going to help the labourers ever organize! Or any other working folks for that matter!

cco

NorthReport wrote:

I suppose we should stop calling them the Liberal Party any more seeing as they are no longer recognized as a political party in Ontario.

They're recognized by Elections Ontario (as are the Greens). They don't have official party status in the legislature. Those are different things.

gadar

NorthReport wrote:

I suppose we should stop calling them the Liberal Party any more seeing as they are no longer recognized as a political party in Ontario.

Thats a great idea. Please stop calling them Liberal Party. And also get the others in that 'we' to follow your lead. Lets talk about the official opposition NDP and the Progressive Con party government.

See we can agree

 

gadar

NorthReport wrote:

And some of Ford’s appeal is directly attributable to the stupidity of the Liberals. Check out this tragic scene at Local 183’s 2018 Family Day celebration

https://mobile.twitter.com/joemancinelli

Doug Ford gets invited to a labour union family day, and it is the fault of the party that is not to be named? 

Lot of unions supporting Trump down south, that must be because of the party not to be named as well.

voice of the damned

gadar wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

And some of Ford’s appeal is directly attributable to the stupidity of the Liberals. Check out this tragic scene at Local 183’s 2018 Family Day celebration

https://mobile.twitter.com/joemancinelli

Doug Ford gets invited to a labour union family day, and it is the fault of the party that is not to be named? 

Lot of unions supporting Trump down south, that must be because of the party not to be named as well.

Do you mean supporting him on this or that policy, or endorsing his being the POTUS? The AFL-CIO, which I believe is the main labour-umbrella down there, backed Hillary Clinton for the presidency in 2016.

https://tinyurl.com/y7ddyzq5

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Ford may be much more dangerous in some respects since Ford may actually back himself up with some competent people who well get the screwing of the people done right.

NDPP

Tory To Make Major Statement About Reports Ford Plans To Slash Size of City Council

http://cp24.to/epBSuBb

"Mayor John Tory will be making a 'major statement' this morning amid reports that Premier Doug Ford plans to slash the size of city council almost in half. Tory has scheduled a news conference for 8:15 at City Hall, where he is expected to address the development. The news conference will come ahead of a 9 am announcement by Ford at Queen's Park.

According to a report in the Toronto Star, Ford plans to slash the number of councillors from a planned 47 to 25 and will do so in time for the Oct 22 municipal elections, plunging the ongoing campaign into chaos..."

 

Ontario Premier Doug Ford Set To Privatize Legal Cannabis Stores, Reports Say

https://www.thestar.com/news/cannabis/2018/07/26/doug-ford-set-to-privat...

"...I don't believe in the government sticking their hands in our lives all the time,' Ford said. The previous plan saw brick and mortar store fronts run by the LCBO and dubbed the Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS) opening across the province in the early days of legalization. Last September, a Campaign Research poll found that 51% of those surveyed backed the original plan..."

Too bad. A major source of funds which would have become available for public uses has now been diverted instead into more profits for the private sector.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

All this over sex-ed? Are the people of Ontario on crack?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I always wondered was "Son of Orange County" was one of my favorite songs...

voice of the damned

alan smithee wrote:

All this over sex-ed? Are the people of Ontario on crack?

I'm pretty sure that sex-ed wasn't the main issue for the majority of Ford voters, and I'd actually be surprised if it was even the largest plurality. Definitely part of a broader coalition, certainly, also including The Liberals Are Corrupt, There's Too Much Government Spending etc.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Definitely part of a broader coalition, certainly, also including The Liberals Are Corrupt, There's Too Much Government Spending etc.

You're right. It's just scary that there was a block of voters that ran to Doug Ford because the public school curriculum dare teach their children about masturbation and sexual practices. I'm almost 50 and we had that back in Elementary school. Was anal sex a step too far?
I only bring it up because there were a lot of Ontarians running around with their heads on fire about it and most definitely ran to Ford because of the perverted lesbian leading the coirrupt Liberals. Was it really worth it? Too many of these people I'd venture to say yes and all the rest was gravy. (as long as it was not the same gravy as that train Ontario had been riding for 15 years smh)

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Too bad. A major source of funds which would have become available for public uses has now been diverted instead into more profits for the private sector.

True.  But at the same time, it's my understanding that when cannabis is legalized in October, Toronto was scheduled to get ONE retail outlet, at 2480 Gerrard St. E., basically in Scarborough.

So honestly, if they want those revenues, wouldn't they maybe consider having more than ONE store, slightly outside of "Toronto", ready for business when the floodgates open?

That's like opening up a brand new Gap store with two t-shirts for sale.  Super business plan!  If Ford is the only politician who can see how monumentally stupid that is, more power to him.   Whose idea was ONE out of the way OCS to serve all of North America's fourth largest city??

Pondering

The government's plan to freeze out the existing marketplace was bound to fail. They need to try to absorb it not replace it. The province that absorbs the most will be the most successful. 

Most of the provinces if not all of them have been shockingly incompetent in their legalization plans. None of them seem to have caught on that this is a natural cottage industry which is a huge boost to local economies rather than multi-national corporations. Cannabis is so easy to breed it lends itself to the craft industry equivalent of craft beer, only even easier and less costly to grow than make. 

There will be vape lounges, eateries and clubs. The only question is whether they will be legal or set up privately. 

To keep sales exclusive to the government would require many more sales locations and I suspect the quality will be sub par. 

I suspect his shrinking of city hall will be met with applause. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The government's plan to freeze out the existing marketplace was bound to fail. They need to try to absorb it not replace it.

They probably could have replaced it, if they'd cared to.

I dont think most cannabis users have an innate preference for meeting up with "Steve" in the Tim Horton's parking lot three hours after "Steve" said he was "totally on his way there right now", to buy whatever "Steve" happens to have for whatever price "Steve" wants to charge.

If the government, with massive buying power and a monopoly, can't beat that model in terms of price, quality and availability then WTF?

I've crticized publicly-owned industry in the past, not because I personally want some private billionaire to get the munnee, but because I kind of think that the government could fuck up a two car funeral procession.  This should have been the easiest slam-dunk in history.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The "Steve" in the "Parking Lot" model is not how it works. You call a pager number, and they call you back and tell you when they will be over. They are quite sure they are going to put the government out of business with better prices and better quality. As it is legal for the user to have up to 30 grams in their possession, it does not matter whether you buy it from a dealer (who I suppose you could call a bootlegger after the law comes into force on Oct 17) or the government. All the taxes the governments were planning on getting are not going to happen. 

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I dont think most cannabis users have an innate preference for meeting up with "Steve" in the Tim Horton's parking lot three hours after "Steve" said he was "totally on his way there right now", to buy whatever "Steve" happens to have for whatever price "Steve" wants to charge.

If the government, with massive buying power and a monopoly, can't beat that model in terms of price, quality and availability then WTF?

I've crticized publicly-owned industry in the past, not because I personally want some private billionaire to get the munnee, but because I kind of think that the government could fuck up a two car funeral procession.  This should have been the easiest slam-dunk in history.

Steve's not working with the same set of conflicting imperatives the government is. Steve doesn't have to pretend that he'd be happiest if nobody smoked weed, and is only selling it to make sure kids can't get their hands on it. The government, meanwhile, having fully committed to that narrative, is trying to find that magical spot where it's easy enough nobody buys from Steve, but hard enough they can convince the Jesus brigade that they stopped kids from smoking. Profitable enough to pay for locking up Steve, but not so profitable people would rather buy from Steve anyway.

When that's the circle the government's impossibly trying to square, yeah, no big surprise when it fucks it up. That says less about the nature of public ownership and more about the problematic narrative chosen to sell the policy -- one that's seductive at first glance, but falls apart under scrutiny.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Chaos Theory: For Doug Ford disruption will be the plan

On his first day in office in 2010 newly elected Toronto Mayor Rob Ford strode out before assembled reporters and proclaimed “Ladies and gentlemen, the war on the car stops today . . . Transit City is over".

Years of planning and securing funding were gone, just like that. LRT routes that would be helping countless communities today in 2018 or in the relatively near future simply vanished in the blink of an eye.

That there was no "war on the car" and that greater transit infrastructure helps ease congestion as one of its secondary benefits was irrelevant. That cancelling the project cost $65 million in penalties was irrelevant. That Ford almost certainly did not have the authority to cancel Transit City was irrelevant. That Ford's fantasy fiction that he would build two complete subway lines which would be completed by the 2015 Pan Am Games in the city almost immediately began to unravel (it of course never happened and would never have been possible to achieve) was irrelevant.

Ford's objective was secured. Disruption. The appearance of "doing what he said he would do" and "taking action" when in fact what he was doing was tearing down what government was going to do and accomplish. A fake crisis, "the war on the car" was used to justify the true goal, which was to destroy.

Never underestimate the damage that can be done by simply cancelling or disrupting plans and then miring governance in self-created perpetual chaos.....

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

The government's plan to freeze out the existing marketplace was bound to fail. They need to try to absorb it not replace it. The province that absorbs the most will be the most successful. 

Most of the provinces if not all of them have been shockingly incompetent in their legalization plans. None of them seem to have caught on that this is a natural cottage industry which is a huge boost to local economies rather than multi-national corporations. Cannabis is so easy to breed it lends itself to the craft industry equivalent of craft beer, only even easier and less costly to grow than make. 

There will be vape lounges, eateries and clubs. The only question is whether they will be legal or set up privately. 

To keep sales exclusive to the government would require many more sales locations and I suspect the quality will be sub par. 

I suspect his shrinking of city hall will be met with applause. 

I was not very happy with Quebec's plans for legalization. But the reality is,I don't need to grow my own plants. The SDCQ is looking like it will be a big success. $6 a gram, a choice of different strains such as Blue Dream,Skunk #1 and OG Kush..For me this is satisfactory and I will find out exactly on October 17 at 10 a.m.

Already there are thousands of job openings for te new SDCQ outlets and the growing number of greenhouses that are being created. Who gives a fuck if there is a monopoly and whocares about growing their own bud? From what I understand,the product these government stores will be selling will be of high quality. I've been looking forward to this for decades and cheap high quality cannabis at stores open 7 days a week from 10 to 10 is all I ever been hoping for all those years. No more bullshit. No more trying to guess exactly what you're smoking,no more inflated prices. It looks like the public will be able to buy medical marijuana grade cannabis for a fair price.

I don't see anything particularly terrible with how things are going. Regardless if I can grow at home or not.

Public or private as long as the prices are low and the quality is high I don't see what anybody who has been beating this drum for 3,4 or even 5 decades has to complain about.

Sometimes it seems like you can't satisfy anybody. I'm satisfied. I'll let others bitch about it.

Private dispensaries could water down quality and raise prices. I'm glad Quebec has nationalized this just like hard liquor. This way greed is put on a very tight leash. Certain things should never be privatized and this is one of them.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Private dispensaries could water down quality and raise prices.

Then they'd be driven off by the government stores.  Why would they bother, if they can't be cheaper or better or both?

Quote:
I'm glad Quebec has nationalized this just like hard liquor. This way greed is put on a very tight leash.

Honest competition seldom leads to the satisfaction of "greed".  If two neighbouring gas stations are having a price war, do they generally keep raising their prices in order to have a higher price than their competitor?  Is that how a price war works now?

quizzical

you people are all talking like this going to happen where you live.

storefronts with high quality labelled strains plus edibles and extracts are literally everywhere in BC. have been for years. i so don't get how complicated you're making it.

pretty much it just needs taxing here. the privately owned model works and it's a craft industry as pondering suggests it should become in Quebec.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
have been for years. i so don't get how complicated you're making it.

For a while in Toronto it was very much like I imagine it is in BC.  Lots of storefronts, lots of lollipops, lots of competition.  But the police cracked down.  Edibles were the first to go (I can't help thinking that if they weren't literally made to appeal to "child" tastes, that might not have happened... why do adults need their edibles to be gummy bears??). 

Then, the most unrepentant storefronts were next and there was a whack of those. 

They seem to have eased off lately, a little.  But I think that TO cops might be a bit more aggressive than BC cops.  Not BC's problem, of course, that Toronto takes stoners so seriously. 

And I suppose we'd have gone through the same silliness with the legalization of beer and tobacco, if beer and tobacco had not always been legal.

"But.. but.. what if someone smokes a cigarette and then drives a steamroller through a schoolyard??????".  That's pretty much the "terror alert level" now, thanks to marijuana being invented a mere six months ago.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Private dispensaries could water down quality and raise prices.

Then they'd be driven off by the government stores.  Why would they bother, if they can't be cheaper or better or both?

That's precisely why I agree with Quebec keeping the product public. The private sector cannot compete with it. The Quebec model will be cheap and high quality. Private businesses will always cut corners for maximum profit. The private sector sucks.

Quote:
I'm glad Quebec has nationalized this just like hard liquor. This way greed is put on a very tight leash.

Honest competition seldom leads to the satisfaction of "greed".  If two neighbouring gas stations are having a price war, do they generally keep raising their prices in order to have a higher price than their competitor?  Is that how a price war works now?

See comment above.

And at first I didn't think Quebec had any plan at all. The cannabis will be sativas at 15% THC and indicas up to 22%.This is far and beyond what is available on the street. Some people go on and on about the BC model and that's fine but the rest of us were not as lucky and maybe if cities like Toronto or Montreal had the heroin epidemics that BC has had for many many years,police here would have ignored dispensaries too. You also have to jump through hoops to get medical marijuana here. The doctor's association of Quebec treats cannabis like it's LSD which is dishonest and laughable.

Personally,I have not had a reliable dealer for quite a few years. I stopped smoking in my 30's for a few years and lost all my connections. I have to buy it off the street. And what is being sold on the street in MTL is garbage. Without naming the area in which there are an abundance of dealers,you HAVE to check out what they are selling before buying. It's a real buyer beware scenario. Half the shit,I don't know what it is but it ain't pot. This wasn't the case 30 years ago...even 20 years ago but that's the case now.

So obviously I am very excited about October. Speaking for myself that is. The bullshit ends then and there.

Pages