Trudeau names ex-TO top cop Bill Blair pot head

Quote:

though, nothing that has so far happened should lead us to expect that cops will turn a blind-eye to corner-cutting dispensaries.

Well, except for cops turning a blind eye to corner-cutting dispensaries.

Like I say, there's about six of them in Kensington, including a new one right on Spadina, and they're not exactly "speakeasies" -- it's abundantly clear what they sell.

And I get that the fact that cops haven't barged in today is not a legal estoppel to them barging in tomorrow if they feel like it, but I seem to recall that "sex shops" on Yonge Street did kind of the same thing a couple of decades ago -- sold or rented movies that were still formally considered "obscene" in Canada, and waited for the cops to arrive.  Eventually, when they didn't, it kind of got to a point where if they did it would be perfectly reasonable to ask the cops why they waited two years to do so, and what specific breakdown of society they were trying to remedy.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

though, nothing that has so far happened should lead us to expect that cops will turn a blind-eye to corner-cutting dispensaries.

Well, except for cops turning a blind eye to corner-cutting dispensaries.

Like I say, there's about six of them in Kensington, including a new one right on Spadina, and they're not exactly "speakeasies" -- it's abundantly clear what they sell.

And I get that the fact that cops haven't barged in today is not a legal estoppel to them barging in tomorrow if they feel like it, but I seem to recall that "sex shops" on Yonge Street did kind of the same thing a couple of decades ago -- sold or rented movies that were still formally considered "obscene" in Canada, and waited for the cops to arrive.  Eventually, when they didn't, it kind of got to a point where if they did it would be perfectly reasonable to ask the cops why they waited two years to do so, and what specific breakdown of society they were trying to remedy.

Well, let me rephrase...

"Nothing that has happened so far should lead us to expect that the cops will turn a blind-eye to corner-cutting dispensaries, as a uniform policy acrosee the country".

Back in the 80s, there was a park in downtown Edmonton where, according to miscreant scofflaws of my distant acquiantance, you could go to buy hashish, and be pretty much assured of finding a seller. However, at the very same time that this situation was allowed to operate right out in the open, other miscreant scofflaws of my distant acquaintance were getting arrested for smoking up outside of nightclubs. You didn't have to wait two years(as in your porn shop example) for a change in policy, the cops were pretty much enforcing two different policies in the same space and time. I suspect that, just as they liked to move prostitutes around to concentrate the "vice" in one particular area, so they liked to keep hash dealing confined to one particular park.

And, if we're analyzing cross-country, that's taking into account dozens of police departments, not to mention the RCMP, few of whom are likely following direct orders from Ottawa about how to interpret the regulation of dispensaries.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

FWIW, the PM does not, in fact, control the RCMP.  As the "R" would suggest, the buck stops in Buckingham Palace.

Also, I have to wonder whether this suggests what it suggests that it suggests.

Quote:

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is organized under the authority of the RCMP Act. In accordance with the Act, it is headed by the Commissioner, who, under the direction of the Minister of Public Safety Canada, has the control and management of the Force and all matters connected therewith.

The Minister of Public Safety can direct the Commissioner to tell the RCMP what to do but not in individual cases, only in policy direction. The obvious example is what happened in Canada after the LeDain report. The RCMP stopped arresting people and began handing out tickets to appear in court to be fined by a judge, I know because that is what happened to me.

Without any change in the law the policing style changed for a few years. When I went to get a pardon I discovered that for a period of a few years none of the arrests were listed in the criminal database kept by the RCMP. I had to get a clerk to go to the archives to find the actual sentence report from the courthouse because the RCMP had no record of my having been arrested for possesion.

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering:

As for using the states as an example of rushed and unplanned legalization, in fact, Colordao had inplemented a fairly stringent system of regulations within LESS THAN A YEAR of the passage of Amendment 64 in November of 2012, with the bulk of the legislation being signed in May of 2013.

http://tinyurl.com/hn2ejgq

These might not all be the exact same regs that would apply in Canada, but I believe it is still a fairly extensive regime, not some anarcho-capitalist free-for-all(each bag sold is tracable, for example). In considerably less time than your 2018-2020 window for Canada.

I know it's argued that the Liberals need time to consult the provinces, but I'm not quite sure I buy that, for reasons I've argued before. Basically, if they want weed subjected to provincial legislation, all they need to do is give advance notice of legalization, and then let the provinces do what they want(ie. "Okay, we're out of this game in a year; each province can write its own rules")

And if they're planning to regulate it federally, there's again no need for provincial consultation. The provinces will have no stake in the matter.

And I suppose I might have been a bit rash in implying that the Liberals are deliberatley misleading the public into thinking legalization is imminent. But I will still say that the perception is out there, as it was under Chretien, and if it helps them garner support from pot-enthusiasts, they are not likely to do anything to counter it.

I didn't say anything about it being rushed or unplanned in the US. Their situation is quite different because it remains illegal federally.

We are legalizing at the federal level. The political ramifications are more more serious. Both levels of government, federal and provincial, will have regulations.

If it happens faster than that great but the notion that if he doesn't do it fast it won't happen at all is weird. Generally speaking government doesn't move fast. Why would this be any different? Trudeau has to make sure this doesn't blow back negatively on him. He doesn't want any excuses to attack him on it.

Some provinces may want to keep it illegal in their territory. What should the packaging rules be? What information should have to be listed? What about laws on pesticide and herbicide? Who should be in charge of testing? Who should be allowed to grow for sale and how should that be controlled? Should outdoor fields be allowed and if so where? What should the penalties be for providing it to minors?

Could he just give the provinces a one year warning and legalize? Sure, but not if he wants to win the election in 2019.

Maybe he will do it a lot faster than I think It was in his first ministerial mandate letters. He has already created a task force on it and put a very credible public figure in charge to make it more difficult to attack him on the law and order front. I expect to see continued steady progress, ministers meeting etc. but I also expect long delays between announcements.

If in the end he fails to legalize then he will deserve all the condemnation we can pile on him. As long as he is moving forward on it there is no reason to believe he won't continue until the job is done.

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering: As for using the states as an example of rushed and unplanned legalization, in fact, Colordao had inplemented a fairly stringent system of regulations within LESS THAN A YEAR of the passage of Amendment 64 in November of 2012, with the bulk of the legislation being signed in May of 2013.

yup i don't believe it for a moment. 

this 'years and years' before it can happen is BS. and as for opponents what kind of can of BS is this? they don't care about opponents in any other arena they're actioning. they have a majority. are they going to listen to their "opponents'  about the TPP? or the pipelines? not freakin likely.

Quote:

I know it's argued that the Liberals need time to consult the provinces, but I'm not quite sure I buy that, for reasons I've argued before. Basically, if they want weed subjected to provincial legislation, all they need to do is give advance notice of legalization, and then let the provinces do what they want(ie. "Okay, we're out of this game in a year; each province can write its own rules")

provinces already make their own rules about alcohol. in BC is 19years old, 45 mins away in AB, for us here, it's 18, for example. so what do you think the 18 year olds do?

Quote:

And if they're planning to regulate it federally, there's again no need for provincial consultation. The provinces will have no stake in the matter.

exactly. they're trying to feed us BS.

Quote:

And I suppose I might have been a bit rash in implying that the Liberals are deliberatley misleading the public into thinking legalization is imminent. But I will still say that the perception is out there, as it was under Chretien, and if it helps them garner support from pot-enthusiasts, they are not likely to do anything to counter it.

i disagree they deliberately are misleading the public.  they going to use it as a ploy again in 2019 to try to get the vote?

i think they're going to try and protests should start immediately given this new 2020 date trying to be pushed. Liberals are lying liars. i'm gonna start agitating about this new LONGGGGGG time frame of 2020 and Justin's worrying he won't get re-elected if legalizes it before the next election.

as for their bsing 'about people just don't understand how long it takes', people do know how long it it didn't take for Colorado and Washington states to legalize it. i guess they stupidly think marijuana advocates don't know squat. i hope they keep this up they'll be gone in 2019.

eta: pondering nonsense you're spouting about the testing is just yap yap yap stuff. HEALTH CANADA already sells marijuana and seeds. they buy from legit grow ops. a former Senator owns one.  they already have policies and procedures for everything in place.

the only thing provinces have to decide upon is distribution types and outlets. imv the current marijuana dispensaries are exatly the same as wine and beer stores. there's no need for sole provincial outlet control even.

There is no problem unless one believes that pot is inherently worse for society than either alcohol or cigarettes. It isn't but the discourse by all the politicians is that it is. That is why it can't be done quickly it is the moralistic bullshit getting in the way.

quizzical wrote:

you actually mentioned 2020 above not just 2019.

i figure you do. you seem to know what ministerial orders or letters were sent and what's in them even.

quizzical wrote:

you got nothing to say about your being called on your nonsensical posturing on how longgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg it has to take?

I think it is normal and to be expected, you don't, what else is there to say?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 That is why it can't be done quickly it is the moralistic bullshit getting in the way.

This is why I've been repeating like a parrot that legislating 'morality' is immoral. The Liberals could end this shit by tearing up all 'morality' and 'vice' legislation.

Those laws are from the 19th century and have no place in the 21st century. A moral is an opinion and opinions should never become laws.

they're not from the 19th century they're from the 20th century. and it's criminalization had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with corporate business lobbyists.

in the early 1920's it was secretively added to the restricted list. in the late 1920's and early 30's they started destroying hemp plants on the prairies used for wind breaks by the farmers to keep top soil in place and to rebuild marginal land.

some historians believe it's this destruction which caused the dirty 30's. they got somewhat serious by the later 30's and started making a few arrests.

eta the only thing the Liberals really have to do is take marijuana off of the restricted substance list.

quizzical wrote:

they're not from the 19th century they're from the 20th century. and it's criminalization had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with corporate business lobbyists.

in the early 1920's it was secretively added to the restricted list. in the late 1920's and early 30's they started destroying hemp plants on the prairies used for wind breaks by the farmers to keep top soil in place and to rebuild marginal land.

some historians believe it's this destruction which caused the dirty 30's. they got somewhat serious by the later 30's and started making a few arrests.

eta the only thing the Liberals really have to do is take marijuana off of the restricted substance list.

The temperance movement started in the 19th century and was a pre-cursor for the prohibition movement of the early 20th century. This movement was to eradicate 'vices' The only reason tobacco was spared is because our PM at the time was a smoker and believed it was harmless.

Yes,taking marijuana out of Category 1 substances would do the trick. But the real trick is making a 'morally sound' decision.

Did you know that our police forces STILL have a Morality Squad? Their job is to bust people involved in 'vices' which are deemed 'immoral' It goes well beyond marijuana.

For example,if my neighbour hosted orgies every weekend in his or her home,he or she would be arrested and charged under our morality laws.

These laws should be burned and buried.

And what gives these people the 'moral high ground'? Pay attention to these people,they are the biggest hypocrites our society has to offer.

marijuana and hemp were not considered a vice. truth is maijuana was used for medicinal use until corporate lobbyists wanted it criminalized and hemp was used for clothing, rope, and paper.

the reefer madness campaign of the mid to late 1930's and onward fed into the morality and bad for you minset.

you'll have to link to these so called morality laws for me alan never heard of them.

eta: am i detecting a underlaying current of sexism in alan's and Northern POV's posts?

quizzical wrote:

 

eta: am i detecting a underlaying current of sexism in alan's and Northern POV's posts?

What the fuck are you talking about? I see you still like to stir the shit even when you have no argument to back your statement. I take offense with what you say. It's defamation and it's a LIE. Piss off.

quizzical wrote:

alan maybe i'm being sensitive and i asked for others opinion not stated one. because you've attributed marijuana criminalization to the temperance movement (women driven) and it's not factual, but you seem insistent it is, what conclusion can we draw?

Northern POV outright called it "100 years of hysteria"

Criticizing the temperance movement is not sexist. I don't care if they were women,men or orangutans,enforcing by law your opinion on the populace is wrong,to say the least.

And to not compare the temperance movement with the prohibition movement of the early 1900's would not be factual. Prohibition is prohibition regardless of what sex a prohibitionist happens to be.

Opium was made illegal in 1908 because of a report by Mackenzie King when he was Minister of Labour in a Liberal government. It was an attack on opium dens and was enacted to appease the racists in the Asiatic Exclusion League who had rioted the year before. Alcohol was prohibited in BC in 1917 shortly after women gained the right to vote and the boys came home from overseas to find they couldn't buy a beer. The laws were changed back by 1921.

Cannabis was added to the Confidential Restricted List in 1923 under the Narcotics Drug Act Amendment Bill. Until then it had been legal. While it is true it was not directly related to the temperance movement it was a self proclaimed suffragist who was the main proponent of that era's reefer madness.

Quote:

Cannabis prohibition

Cannabis was added to the Confidential Restricted List in 1923 under the Narcotics Drug Act Amendment Bill after a vague reference to a "new drug" during a late night session of the House of Commons on April 23, 1923.[27][28]

Historians usually point to the 1922 publication of Emily Murphy’s The Black Candle as the inspiration for the addition. Murphy was a suffragist and police magistrate who wrote a series of articles in Maclean’s magazine under the pen-name "Janey Canuck," which formed the basis of her book. She uses numerous anecdotes culled mostly from anti-drug reformers and police to make her arguments, which make strong links between drugs and race and the threat this poses to white women. One chapter is entitled "Marahuana – A New Menace", and makes the claim that the only ways out of cannabis addiction are insanity, death, or abandonment.

Although her anti-drug screeds were widely read and helped spread the drug panic across the country, historian Catharine Carstairs disputes that the short chapter in Murphy’s book on cannabis inspired the drug’s inclusion on Canada’s restricted substance list. Specifically, Murphy was not respected by the Division of Narcotic Control because of the creative liberties she took in presenting research they had assisted her with.[26]:31 n 24, 49

More likely, cannabis was added to the list because of Canadian involvement in international conferences where it was discussed. According to one government official, cannabis was outlawed after the Director of the Federal Division of Narcotic Control returned from League of Nations meetings where the international control of the drug was broached.[26]:49 Cannabis did not begin to attract official attention in Canada until the latter 1930s, and even then it was minimal.[26]:51 The first seizure of cannabis by Canadian police was not until 1937.[26]:48 Between 1946 and 1961, cannabis accounted for only 2% of all drug arrests in Canada.[26]:112

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_Canada#Early_...

[Note to self: Do not respond to stupid provocative comments.]

Northern PoV wrote:

In the real world we need to negotiate with both domestic and international layers of gov't. and to inoculate the initiative (from the folks would want to perpetuate the 100 years of hysteria) by appointing a L&O stooge to lead the effort.  Sigh 

Thank you for your common sense.

quizzical wrote:

pondering in the real world you would've been climbing over him for his use of hysteria....

btw there's need to negotiate anything it's been shown again and again in this thread it's not true but an excuse.

sadly your not using "common sense".

Reefer Madness is used today to refer to the hysteria over marijuana use in the late 1930s when marijuana prohibition was enacted as federal law in the United States, but at the time, it referred to what occurred when people used marijuana.

http://www.hightimes.com/read/original-hysteria-over-marijuana-and-brain...

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/10/08/stephen-harpers-hypocrisy-...

Just as Prohibition flopped for booze, criminalizing cannabis is a war without a cause. We’ve known this since the seventies, but allowed anti-drug hysteria to cloud our thinking.

http://washington-drug-defense.com/REEFER_MADNESS

In fact, creating public hysteria over smoking marijuana was simply a smokescreen for Hearst and the wealthy DuPont family to prevent the cultivation or importation of hemp products into the United States.

The word is in common usage and has been for decades in reference to false fears over marijuana usage.

Emily Murphy was a raving racist. Most drug prohibition is a product of racism. In Canada it was anti-Chinese sentiment and in the US it was anti-Mexican sentiment.

And drug laws aren't biblical. All drugs were legal from the beginning of time. The world didn't fall apart then and it wouldn't fall apart now.

And when pressed to justify prohibition,prohibitionists these days,especially on topic of herb,go on and on about public health.

So the argument has evolved from false exaggeration citing insanity and addiction to it is 'infinitely worse than tobacco'.

Basically they concede (or propagate) that it's a health issue. If that is true,shouldn't control go to doctors rather than the police?

If they were really concerned with addiction,isn't that a sickness? When and how has a disease become a criminal issue?

Anywho,prohibition was borne from racism and 'morality'. 2 things that make me sick.

quizzical wrote:

lol lol pondering as i said in any other type of discusion you would've been all over the use of hysteria and wouldn't have even condoned any magazines use of it....lol

btw just cuz a mag uses it doesn't mean it's not innate sexism because it is.

again prohibition has NOTHING to do with why marijuana was criminalized. it had everything to do with lobbyists pressuring the LIBERAL government of the day. lololol

I haven't said a word about prohibition. All I have said is that the term hysteria is in common usage and has been for close to a century to describe Reefer Madness type opposition to marijuana. Used in this context hysteria refers to both men and women.

Google it and you will find thousands of references. When referencing women in particular as in "hysterical women" or a specific woman it is sexist. When used as a general term to reference both men and women it isn't. You have a right to think otherwise but you don't have a right to impose a view on me that I don't hold and have never expressed.

I see no benefit to hostile attacks against babblers.

Pondering wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering, if we don't have legalization by the next election, do you see yourself continuing to support Trudeau?

I just saw this question and absolutely not. Even now I don't see myself voting for him again in 2019 although it is possible. In 2019 I will be all about "so what have you got for me now"?

Pondering this conflicts with comments you made prior alluding to your ok with it not being legalized until 2020 after the 2019 election afterall there's so much needing to be done.

which is it truthfully?

i was forcing anything upon you. quote me where i did...nice try.