Canada's pot legalization bill to be introduced in spring 2017, minister tells UN

mark_alfred wrote:

More restrictive policy from this government that potentially endangers people:

Restrictions on pot-safety testing put public at risk, scientists warn

Quote:

Kirk Tousaw, a Vancouver lawyer who has argued several marijuana cases that have forced the government to change regulations, said he represented one lab that was told by Health Canada to stay away from unregulated cannabis. [...]

Glad to see Kirk Tousaw still active in the movement, after being [url=http://www.straight.com/article-163184/kirk-tousaws-resignation-ndp-cand... as a candidate by the NDP[/url].

Quote:

Well,Magoo,I'm curious.

How much (after tax) would you imagine the price ranges would be based on tax on THC content for a 1/8 for example? Where do we start? At 1%? That doesn't sound realistic or reasonable.

Well, first off, I can only (wildly) speculate what the actual tax on legal weed would be, and what fraction of the overall price that tax would represent.

But to keep the math simple, let's talk about single grams (and assume that larger quantities would just scale up in price in a linear way -- which they don't, actually, for alcohol).

Maybe the government might say that the tax on THC is one half of one cent per milligram of THC.

So a gram of pretty boring weed, at 14%, would have 140 milligrams of THC, and so the tax on that would be $0.70, or seventy cents.

A gram of pretty thoroughbred weed, at 28%, would have 280 milligrams of THC, and so the tax on that gram would be $1.40.

A gram of "shatter", at 90%, would have 900 milligrams of THC, and so the tax on that would be $4.50.

Exactly how much each of these grams would cost in total would depend on government markup (which isn't the same as tax), producer price, and overheads.

The rationale behind this, from the LCBO point of view, is that it's the ethanol in beer, wine and spirits that gets you drunk (and/or affects your health) and they don't want any significant "bargains" in terms of buying ethanol. 

Some brands are more expensive than others, and it's up to you if you want to pay for aging, or filtering, or a famous name, but other than buying the crappiest stuff there is, with the lowest manufacturer price (e.g. London Dry Sherry) there really isn't any kind of super-cheap option for just getting drunk.

This is also why bars are prohibited (in law if not in practice) from having promotions like "Happy Hour", or "$1 bottles of beer" or whatever.  Some still do it, but they're taking their chances.

Contrast this with many jurisdictions in the U.S.  Google "two buck chuck" -- an allegedly very good, very drinkable wine that sold for two dollars a bottle in some places.  You won't find a two dollar bottle of wine here.

Quote:

The higher the price of the product the more tax is paid.

I believe that it, in Ontario at least, this could be correct, but that would be basic sales tax, the same as you'd pay buying an expensive toilet, but not excise tax on the ethanol.

Quote:

Growers will charge more for a product that contains higher levels of THC therefore the tax is automatically higher if not the rate.

Probably true.  If a supplier charges $30/gram for weed that was personally watered by Snoop, the sales tax on that amount would be higher.  Admittedly, I wasn't aware of, nor factoring in, basic sales tax in my examples above.

Quote:

Adjusting the rate by thc content seems needlessly complicated.

How so?  If we can adjust the rate of sales tax based on price (which we know) then what's the difficult part of adjusting the excise tax based on the THC content (which cops seem to feel we should know)?  They're both just math, yes?

Quote:

Glad to see Kirk Tousaw still active in the movement, after being [url=http://www.straight.com/article-163184/kirk-tousaws-resignation-ndp-cand... as a candidate by the NDP[/url].

I know you're desperate to heap scorn on the NDP, but that blog post is from 2008!

Quote:

Agreed.  I don't think alcohol has a tax that progresses in line with the percentage of alcohol -- I'm pretty sure it's simply set at 12% in Ontario

Then we should all be able to buy "two buck chuck" for $2.24.

Upthread I suggested that nearly pure ethanol, made undrinkable, sells for about $4 a gallon.  Admittedly, that's a very old price, so let's say I'm off by a factor of 500% -- it's really $20.

So, why can't I buy a gallon of 99% vodka for $22.40?

Is the concentration too high to sell safely?  Very well:  water it down 5:2, until I get 2.5 gallons of 40% vodka for 22.40.  Or, $22.41 if you want to charge me for the water.

I get that this doesn't apply to single malt Scotches, or liqueurs made by monks, but why doesn't it even apply to "Alcool"?

Worth noting:  when distillers make your rum or gin or rye, they're usually distilling to about 80% and then watering it down with nearly free water.  It doesn't cost MORE to make an overproof rum**, in the same way that it never cost MORE to make unleaded gasoline. 

** ed'd to add, for clarity:  it certainly costs more to fill a bottle with overproof rum than it would cost to fill it with watered-down rum.  But it doesn't cost more per unit of ethanol.

Quote:

Is there some other tax I'm unaware of that is progressive based upon the percentage of alcohol (IE, a tax that goes up as the percentage of alcohol goes up)?

I'm prepared to be wrong on this -- and it'll be an XL egg on my face if I am -- but it's always been my understanding that the EXCISE tax on alcohol -- not the sales tax -- is indexed to the ethanol content.

If not, then as I just asked, why can't I buy a cheap gallon of nearly pure ethanol for less than the cost of 26oz of Captain Morgan's white rum?  If producers can sell it for $4 a gallon (or, corrected for the times, $20 a gallon) to industry, why can't they sell it as a beverage for the same price, plus the sales tax?

That said. the excise tax is NOT based on "percentage", it's based on amount.  A 3 litre keg of beer @5% should still be EXCISE TAXED according to the 150 ml of ethanol in it.  A 26 oz (750ml) bottle of gin @40% should still be EXCISE TAXED according to the 300 ml of ethanol in it.  It's not the percentage, it's the absolute amount.  If they're also sales taxed, that's according to the net price of each.

Note that like watering down distilled spirits, denaturing alcohol involves buying and adding something, not a costly process of removing something.  Denatured alcohol, like 40% spirits, are the result of an extra step, not one fewer step.

[digression]

Quote:

You all seem completely unaware that I am saying the primary motivation of the Liberals is political expediency not justice or righteousness.

Given that you've made this argument thousands of times over, you'd think we'd get it by now.

Trudeau is a political genius when it comes to appealing to people.  He knows what people want.  He's a regular Bobby Fischer in his prime, thinking many moves ahead.  He is the Einstein of retail politics.  And you too are a genius when it comes to understanding what people want.  Regular people.  Open minded people.  Swing voters.  Not politicos or partisans or the opinionated.  But the pure and good.  Like you!

So if the NDP and/or those interested in social democracy ever want to win, they need to stop opposing Trudeau.  For now, best for them to let Trudeau go unimpeded, because he'll win even more if you try to fight him now.  Those voters who voted NDP expecting them to advocate for proportional representation*, pay equity*, child care, the environment, union rights, immediate decrim of simple possession, scrap Bill C-51, etc., should realize the NDP lost -- they and the NDP should just suck it up.  The NDP need to just stick their heads in ground ostrich style for now until they come up with the perfect leader with a perfect plan -- and not just Leap, but super-duper Occupy plus!

____

*these two issues (proportional representation and pay equity) are showing some real promise due to work the NDP has done, actually.  I should note here that the NDP adopting your suggestion (as I perceive it) of not representing the issues that their supporters voted for them to represent, would be, I feel, an abdication of responsibility rather than a "winning move".

[/digression]

[digression]

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

You all seem completely unaware that I am saying the primary motivation of the Liberals is political expediency not justice or righteousness.

Given that you've made this argument thousands of times over, you'd think we'd get it by now.

Yeah, I think you would get it by now. If I were partisan I would give them credit for doing the right thing instead of ascribing it to political expediency.

mark_alfred wrote:

Trudeau is a political genius when it comes to appealing to people.  He knows what people want.  He's a regular Bobby Fischer in his prime, thinking many moves ahead.  He is the Einstein of retail politics.

If that were true he would not have blown it on C-51, or maybe you are right in that it hasn't hurt him politically.

mark_alfred wrote:

And you too are a genius when it comes to understanding what people want.  Regular people.  Open minded people.  Swing voters.  Not politicos or partisans or the opinionated.  But the pure and good.  Like you!

I am no more and no less pure and good than anyone else here. It is you who consider yourself superior. I don't know where you get the open minded thing but I do think I have a better understanding of people who aren't into politics than you do and I certainly respect them a lot more.

mark_alfred wrote:

So if the NDP and/or those interested in social democracy ever want to win, they need to stop opposing Trudeau.

No, they need to get better at it.

mark_alfred wrote:

  For now, best for them to let Trudeau go unimpeded, because he'll win even more if you try to fight him now.

Again no, and again they need to get better at it.

mark_alfred wrote:

Those voters who voted NDP expecting them to advocate for proportional representation*, pay equity*, child care, the environment, union rights, immediate decrim of simple possession, scrap Bill C-51, etc., should realize the NDP lost -- they and the NDP should just suck it up.

People who voted for the NDP have switched to supporting the Liberals. The NDP's current tactics are failing. People don't vote just to have someone vent for them.

mark_alfred wrote:

The NDP need to just stick their heads in ground ostrich style for now until they come up with the perfect leader with a perfect plan -- and not just Leap, but super-duper Occupy plus!

Again no, but they do need to pay attention to the appeal of Sanders and Corbyn.

mark_alfred wrote:

*these two issues (proportional representation and pay equity) are showing some real promise due to work the NDP has done, actually.

The Liberals are into the pay equity thing anyway so I doubt the NDP is having any impact. On proportional representation I haven't seen any advancement.

It seems to me that the NDP you prefer is the one satisfied to be a softer version of the Liberals.

[end digression]

What is the point of promoting decriminalization? Will it cause the Liberals to decriminalize faster than they would otherwise do so? Will it cause more voters to vote NDP in 2019? What's the goal?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Is there some other tax I'm unaware of that is progressive based upon the percentage of alcohol (IE, a tax that goes up as the percentage of alcohol goes up)?

I'm prepared to be wrong on this -- and it'll be an XL egg on my face if I am -- but it's always been my understanding that the EXCISE tax on alcohol -- not the sales tax -- is indexed to the ethanol content.

If not, then as I just asked, why can't I buy a cheap gallon of nearly pure ethanol for less than the cost of 26oz of Captain Morgan's white rum?  If producers can sell it for $4 a gallon (or, corrected for the times, $20 a gallon) to industry, why can't they sell it as a beverage for the same price, plus the sales tax?

That said. the excise tax is NOT based on "percentage", it's based on amount.  A 3 litre keg of beer @5% should still be EXCISE TAXED according to the 150 ml of ethanol in it.  A 26 oz (750ml) bottle of gin @40% should still be EXCISE TAXED according to the 300 ml of ethanol in it.  It's not the percentage, it's the absolute amount.  If they're also sales taxed, that's according to the net price of each.

Note that like watering down distilled spirits, denaturing alcohol involves buying and adding something, not a costly process of removing something.  Denatured alcohol, like 40% spirits, are the result of an extra step, not one fewer step.

It seems Mr. Magoo is not entirely blind. He is rightish.

5. Excise tax

In addition to placing importance on the stated country of origin, consumers demand that the label clearly identify the type of product, whether it be wine, beer or spirits. The applicable excise tax rate varies by category of alcoholic beverage. Many producers see excise taxes as a substantial burden. In the brewing industry, the federal excise tax is $31.22 per hectolitre, which works out to 10.6¢ per bottle of beer. By the time beer is sold to the consumer, a range of other taxes are charged, making up half the retail price.[106] For their part, Canadian wines made with 100% Canadian agricultural product have enjoyed an excise exemption since 2006.[107] However, Canadian and foreign wine blends have the excise tax applied. In fact, the excise tax on foreign products applies to the total content of blended wine, regardless of the Canadian to foreign content ratio. Once a bottle contains as little as 1% imported content, it is subject to the full foreign excise tax.[108] In the spirits industry, this tax is nearly 20¢ per standard drink, versus 10¢ on a bottle of beer.[109]

In order to promote growth and prosperity in the alcoholic drinks industry, witnesses recommend a reduction in the excise tax.

As members will be aware, the excise duty on Canadian wine was eliminated in its entirety in 2006, this despite the fact that these drinks, whether they’re spirits, beer, or wine, all contain exactly the same amount of alcohol…. The impact of these changes is that, despite representing less than 30% of the beverage alcohol market, spirits’ share of excise payments has gone from 38% in 2006 to nearly 45% over the last six years.… Our excise duties are $11.69 per proof litre—so that’s a litre of actual alcohol. That went up by sixty cents in 2006. What we're asking the government to do is reduce that by a dollar.… That would take that twenty cents of excise down to about eighteen and a half cents. So a pretty modest reduction.[110]

This would free up funds to invest and improve facilities and to develop new international markets. Some witnesses also recommend applying an excise tax exemption to the Canadian portion of blended wines. An “International Canadian Blends” wine containing up to 75% imported wine could have the excise tax exemption apply to the 25% Canadian content. According to Mr. Patrick Gedge, Chief Executive Officer of the Winery and Grower Alliance of Ontario, this exemption would continue to increase demand for Canadian grapes and help expand the wine industry.[111]

However, the Grape Growers of Ontario and the Wine Council of Ontario do not believe that an excise tax exemption on only 25% Canadian content of a blended wine would encourage an increase in Canadian content or help grow the wine market.

We believe in growing the 100% Canadian domestic market. We will never get there if 25% in the bottle of a blended bottle of wine is incented with excise tax relief.…

We don’t see that as growing the marketplace. We see it as stalling the marketplace. If they really want to show that the bottle of wine has growth, then go to 50%. Give it 50% federal excise relief; at least incent it upwards, not backwards, because that’s currently what we see.

We’re not supporting 25% excise tax relief. When the federal government came out with the 100% federal excise tax relief, we felt that was such a strengthening of the industry, because it put the focus on Canadians. It put the focus on jobs.[112]

Recommendation

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada consult with stakeholders regarding excise tax exemption on Canadian alcoholic beverages in order to promote the development of Canadian alcoholic beverages industry.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6226525&L...

Well that's about as clear as mud.

http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/tax-center/excise-t...

Excise taxes are commonly included in the price of a product, such as cigarettes or alcohol, as well as in the price of an activity,often gambling. Excise taxes may be imposed by both Federal and state authorities.

Excise taxes usually fall into one of two types:

• Ad Valorem; meaning that a fixed percentage is charged on a particular good or product. This administration of the tax is less common.
• Specific; meaning that a fixed currency amount may be imposed depending on the quantity of the goods or products that are purchased. Specific is the most common type.

For example, a bottle of wine that normally costs $10 may have a specific excise tax of $2 imposed on it. As per the intent of the excise tax, the additional cost of the wine is passed onto the consumer, making the retail cost of the bottle $12. While this seemingly does not affect the maker of the wine, who's still gains $10 in revenue, an increase in price does reduce quantity demanded, which would indeed affect his balance sheet.

Basically it can be applied or designed any way they want and is applied by both the federal and provincial governments separately. Going by THC content rather than a percentage of the wholesale price would be needlessly complicated on marijuana and would most likely bring in lower revenue.

The excise tax on alcohol should be changed to a percentage of sales price to make it more progressive.

Pondering wrote:

 

There will still be a black market of home grown as there is for wine it just won't be big enough to threaten legal sales.

Once it goes legal there will be a wide variety of prices. I expect someday to see a gram sell for 100$+ because it was grown in diamond dust or some such nonsense.

 

 

And this is good? 

Sounds horrible.

Wine connoisseurs are called sommeliers -- or perhaps oenophiles.  What are marijuana connoisseurs called?  Someone's going to need to pair the proper bud with the proper dorito in the future.

Quote:

What are marijuana connoisseurs called?  Someone's going to need to pair the proper bud with the proper dorito in the future.

Hehe.

"With the Cool Ranch, I'd suggest a nice, crisp Sativa..."

I'm wondering what the warning labels, and photos, on packaging will be like.

[IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/2rh36o8.jpg[/IMG]

WARNING: Long term use of this product may lead to waking up in a yurt at Burning Man.

Quote:

Unless that gram can last me a good week,I can't see anyone buying any strain for that type of money.

I, too, am a cheapskate.

But there really are hundred dollar bottles of wine, and steaks, so who are we among so many?

Have you ever seen "Crystal Head" vodka?  It's a premium brand manufactured, in part, by our own beloved Dan Ackroyd, and one of its claims to fame is that it's "herkimer diamond filtered" -- in other words, passed over some quartz believed to have metaphysical properties.  This phenomenon is real, even if rational thinking skinflints like us don't get on board.

Re: post #223

Whatever.  Keep voting Liberal then.  To each their own.

Quote:

Clogging up the courts and giving people criminal records for simple possession when the government is planning to legalize it in the near future is stupid.  It's an unnecessary social cost. 

All true, but the bottom line is that the Liberals are not going to change their minds on this and it will shortly be a moot point.

Yes, but it still could be a year or two.  Your almost hostile response to the NDP taking up this issue does seem strange, given that you've cited the legalization of marijuana as the one of the biggest reasons you voted for them.  That suggests you're a user if that issue stood out amongst the rest.  And yet, you argued strongly against interim decriminalization while awaiting legalization in post #151, citing various right wing trope like "they want to block sales to minors" and concluding "politically it is very obvious that he is better off doing nothing prior to full legalization."  And that makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for a user to say. Of course if you're not a user, then why the hell would this be the pivotal issue to choose to vote for the Liberals?  (that's a rhetorical question, so please don't answer, because I know it would be some long ramble that makes no sense to me ... well, perhaps if I did several hot knives.... no, even then it wouldn't make sense to me, I imagine).

The "politically it is very obvious that he [Trudeau] is better off doing nothing" is bullshit.  As I've mentioned before, it was going to be decriminalized (IE, the laws would be changed, which was further than what the NDP now were suggesting) under Chretien in around 2002, and during the interim there was a period for almost a year where it was openly declared that charges would not be laid for simple possession given the upcoming official decriminalization*.  And this was not politically bad for the Liberals.  At all.  Or for society.  It just made sense. 

Anyway, it's important for the opposition -- in the case of the NDP, the progressive opposition -- to be trying to look out for the interests of all, given that every elected official should be looking to promote "peace, order, and good government".  The failure of the Liberals to decriminalize simple possession during the interim between now and when it's legalized, when this would not be a difficult thing to do, is ridiculous and without reason and is bad policy.  And I say that as someone who preferred legalization over decriminalization of marijuana.  The assumption of most is that the former included the latter (or at least included relaxed enforcement -- the escalation of rhetoric and enforcement is just ridiculous.)

____

*Obviously decriminalization didn't happen back then.  The House was prorogued and the bill died -- and it was not revisited, either because of pressure from the States or from pressure from some of the more right-leaning elements in the Libs.  Regardless, for about a year or so it was in effect decriminalized, and there was no big deal.  No one cared.

mark_alfred wrote:

Yes, but it still could be a year or two.  Your almost hostile response to the NDP taking up this issue does seem strange, given that you've cited the legalization of marijuana as the one of the biggest reasons you voted for them.  That suggests you're a user if that issue stood out amongst the rest.  And yet, you argued strongly against interim decriminalization while awaiting legalization in post #151, citing various right wing trope like "they want to block sales to minors" and concluding "politically it is very obvious that he is better off doing nothing prior to full legalization."  And that makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for a user to say. Of course if you're not a user, then why the hell would this be the pivotal issue to choose to vote for the Liberals?  (that's a rhetorical question, so please don't answer, because I know it would be some long ramble that makes no sense to me ... well, perhaps if I did several hot knives.... no, even then it wouldn't make sense to me, I imagine). 

Yes, I am a user although I prefer the term aficionado. You misunderstand me. I am all for decriminalization first. All drugs should be decriminalized for users. Why isn't the NDP arguing for that? Why didn't the NDP support legalization instead of using the argument that pot used to be like oregano? Political expediency. They thought it would be more useful not to support legalization because they wanted to appear more centrist than the Liberals. Conservatives, Liberals and NDP all make their decisions based on votes and money not right and wrong.

mark_alfred wrote:

The "politically it is very obvious that he [Trudeau] is better off doing nothing" is bullshit.  As I've mentioned before, it was going to be decriminalized (IE, the laws would be changed, which was further than what the NDP now were suggesting) under Chretien in around 2002, and during the interim there was a period for almost a year where it was openly declared that charges would not be laid for simple possession given the upcoming official decriminalization*.  And this was not politically bad for the Liberals.  At all.  Or for society.  It just made sense.

I don't believe arrests for possession were actually stopped for a year because that would be a provincial decision not a federal one unless the federal government actually changed the law, and they didn't.

mark_alfred wrote:

Anyway, it's important for the opposition -- in the case of the NDP, the progressive opposition -- to be trying to look out for the interests of all, given that every elected official should be looking to promote "peace, order, and good government".

But the NDP isn't doing that. They aren't looking out for the interests of other drug users. They aren't looking out for the interests of the provinces that don't want leaky oil pipelines.

mark_alfred wrote:

The failure of the Liberals to decriminalize simple possession during the interim between now and when it's legalized, when this would not be a difficult thing to do, is ridiculous and without reason and is bad policy.  And I say that as someone who preferred legalization over decriminalization of marijuana.  The assumption of most is that the former included the latter (or at least included relaxed enforcement -- the escalation of rhetoric and enforcement is just ridiculous.) 

The only question the Liberals are asking themselves is what the impact would be on voters. How many voters would they gain through decriminalization? Would you change your vote to Liberal? How many voters will they lose by not decriminalizing first? Probably none as long as they legalize. If they were to decriminalize what would be the threshold? What about if someone decided to smoke pot sitting on the steps of a daycare or in front of an elementary school? Decriminalization would leave a void. New laws would have to be written.

mark_alfred wrote:

*Obviously decriminalization didn't happen back then.  The House was prorogued and the bill died -- and it was not revisited, either because of pressure from the States or from pressure from some of the more right-leaning elements in the Libs.  Regardless, for about a year or so it was in effect decriminalized, and there was no big deal.  No one cared. 

I don't believe there was a year in which there were no charges for possession. The Liberals under Martin dropped to a minority and in the one after that the NDP became official opposition so it seems progressives did not switch to Liberal due to their flirtation with decriminalization.

The NDP is just like the Liberals. There is no difference. Both parties design their platforms and make decisions based on political expediency. So do the Conservatives for that matter. Both the Conservatives and the NDP double down on their cores when they are losing and move to the centre when they taste possible success. The Liberals don't have that option because they don't have much of a base. Few people are passionately moderate. The Liberals try to get some Conservatives and some progressives by being fiscally conservative (but not reformist) and get some progressives by being socially progressive.  The Conservatives and the NDP both hoped to kill off the Liberals forcing people to choose either "right" or "left" both thinking it would profit them more.

The NDP refused to allow members to vote on marijuana legalization so they only support democracy when it suits them. They aren't pushing for decriminalization because it's right they are pushing it in the hopes of damaging the Liberals. It isn't fooling anyone other than core NDP supporters.

Prior to the election I hoped the Liberals would decriminalize while designing the legalization program but I didn't expect it because I figured if that was their intent they would have said so. They never argued that marijuana was harmless.

I would prefer decrim + legalization but I will more than happily settle for legalization of recreational use. Any unreasonable restrictions will fall to the wayside becoming unenforcable over time or being overthown by the Supreme Court.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our courts been serving us well.

Post-legalization finding illegal grows will be like looking for a needle in a haystack and will be tough to prosecute. Law enforcement will look to their own survival. They will target other drugs, or johns and traffickers, or whatever else will keep them employed.

Whose vote would the Liberals win by decriminalizing now that they will not win through legalization?

Quote:

The excise tax on alcohol should be changed to a percentage of sales price to make it more progressive.

Except that they're two different taxes, for a reason.

Taxing the sales price -- which I guess they also do? -- would mean (let's say) a $15 tax on a rare, exotic, $100 bottle of beer.

The excise tax would be the same for that bottle of beer as for any other of the same volume and strength.

The excise tax is taxing alcohol, not water or flavourings.

But hey, I'm down with it if it means I can buy that gallon of pure alcohol for $4 + $0.60 in sales tax.  Is the strength a problem?  Dilute it to 2.5 gallons with free water.  I'm still getting a gallon of fun for about the cost of a bottle of craft beer.

alan smithee wrote:

Pondering wrote:

There will still be a black market of home grown as there is for wine it just won't be big enough to threaten legal sales.

Once it goes legal there will be a wide variety of prices. I expect someday to see a gram sell for 100$+ because it was grown in diamond dust or some such nonsense.

And this is good? 

Sounds horrible.

The going rate as far as I am concerned for the best bud is $50 a quarter ounce or $180 an ounce. I usually pay $150 an ounce for top bud. I have heard of people who are not connected paying $70 a quarter. That is somewhere between $5 and $7 a gram with the $70 dollar quarters being about $10. I suspect that the government approved bud is going to go for at least $10 a gram. The idea of $100 a gram pot is extremely far fetched. A gram is only going to get you one big joint or two small ones. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The idea of $100 a gram pot is extremely far fetched. A gram is only going to get you one big joint or two small ones.

Not to seem argumentative, but that's like saying that nobody would ever spend more than $30 on a watch that tells time.

Why will pot never, ever become a Veblen Good?  What if Snoop and Willie Nelson both personally breathed on it??

And your scenario is not extremely far fetched?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The excise tax on alcohol should be changed to a percentage of sales price to make it more progressive.

Except that they're two different taxes, for a reason.

Taxing the sales price -- which I guess they also do? -- would mean (let's say) a $15 tax on a rare, exotic, $100 bottle of beer.

The excise tax would be the same for that bottle of beer as for any other of the same volume and strength.

The excise tax is taxing alcohol, not water or flavourings.

But hey, I'm down with it if it means I can buy that gallon of pure alcohol for $4 + $0.60 in sales tax.  Is the strength a problem?  Dilute it to 2.5 gallons with free water.  I'm still getting a gallon of fun for about the cost of a bottle of craft beer.

What makes you think you could buy pure food grade alcohol for 4$?

Sales tax is not the only means an excise tax can be applied. It can also be applied as a percentage of sales. For example there is a tax on gas that we don't see.

While I'm sure you're right about the Excise Tax, I did briefly look at it on Canlii, and yikes, I wasn't able to find how alcohol was dealt with in that clutter of legislation.  Anyway, it's not important.  In fact, I'm not even sure how this topic came up here.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The idea of $100 a gram pot is extremely far fetched. A gram is only going to get you one big joint or two small ones.

Not to seem argumentative, but that's like saying that nobody would ever spend more than $30 on a watch that tells time.

Why will pot never, ever become a Veblen Good?  What if Snoop and Willie Nelson both personally breathed on it??

And your scenario is not extremely far fetched?

Actually it isn't far-fetched. Why do you think celebrities get paid to say they use a product or designed it?

http://ca.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/11/most-expensive-vodkas/imperial...

Price: $3.7 million
Buy It Here:Billionaire Vodka

Leon Verres' "Billionaire Vodka" will set you back a staggering $3.7 million. Honestly, what gives? How are you going to call yourself Billionaire Vodka but charge less than one billion dollars? It's bullshit.

They do run the wheat-based spirit through diamonds to remove impurities, and the 5-liter bottle is adorned with 3,000 diamonds and faux fur (only because Verres is a staunch animal rights supporter), so that's cool. But it just seems like a fail.

100$ a gram is guestimating on the low side. Rich people want exclusivity. The point is to be able to buy things other people can't or won't buy. Maybe it will come pre-hand-rolled with some gold-leaf on the paper so when you pull it out everyone will know what it is.

Re:  post #237

Many meandering points in your post, some of which seem intended to undermine what I'm saying.  It suggests I didn't succeed in conveying my point.  I'll try to be clearer so what I'm saying is easier to understand. 

Basically, it could be as long as two years before legalization happens.  Since the government has decided pot is worthy of legalization, it's just hypocritical for the government to keep charging people with simple possession in the interim before it is legalized. 

The government engaging in this hypocrisy causes potential harm to pot smokers.  This hypocrisy of government subjects pot users to a potential criminal record for simple possession -- which would result in them not being able to travel to places like the States, having greater difficulties getting work, etc.  This is a social cost.  It is a significant harm to those people who receive such charges and convinctions.  Also, it clogs the courts and wastes police resources.

Rather than have this problem for two years, there is a very simple fix for this interim time until pot is legalized:  decriminization of simple possession.  This need not even involve changing the laws.  Rather, it could be accomplished in the interim by what's known as de facto decriminalization, which involves an administrative decision not to prosecute acts that nonetheless remain against the law.  The NDP have advocated this solution to this current situation:  link.

In summary:

Clogging up the courts and giving people criminal records for simple possession when the government is planning to legalize it in the near future (a year or two) is an unnecessary social cost that harms people.  As I've described, this could be fixed quickly and easily via de facto decriminalization.  There is no reason to undermine those who advocate for this.  It's a good interim solution to the situation now until legalization occurs (which, again, could be as long as two years.)

Quote:

Not to minimize the situation for anyone charged with possession in the interim, but the significance pales in comparision to income inequality, distribution of wealth and climate change, none of which are being seriously challenged. While the NDP flits from one issue to the next trying to sling mud that won't stick.

The NDP has a shadow cabinet that follows various issues.  For instance, Angus does work on Indigenous stuff, Ramsey on trade, etc.  See http://www.ndp.ca/team  Given the topic here is "Canada's pot legalization bill", that might be why stuff like "income inequality, distribution of wealth and climate change" isn't coming up in this thread.

Quote:

They will decriminalize when they are ready to and not a moment before. It's clear they don't intend to do it now.

Yes, I agree with you here.  The Liberals have shown themselves to be completely intransigent on this issue, unfortunately.

I must agree that this thread is irrelevant.

However,in that theory, the entire topic is irrelevant. Because all I have been reading is pure conjecture. The only ones who know exactly what direction the Liberals have planned in regards to restrictions,potency,price,retailers,etc...are the people in the Liberals war room working on this legislation.

What I don't understand is anyone making a coherent argument of defending why in the meantime the Liberals have chose to keep the status quo.

It's illogical and it's bad policy. It's also incredibly hypocritical when I see the likes of Anne McLellan state clearly to the media that the current system does not work and is an injustice.

If you really believed it was an injustice,you'd make a few series of faxes to the Police Association and Crown to refrain from pursuing simple possession charges effective immediately.

It would take 15 minutes. Instead we wait at least a year for something that no one has any idea what the Liberals have up their sleeve and instead prop up the status quo.

Bad policy. Reckless and plain stupid policy.

Alcohol is regulated because alcohol can be genuinely harmful -- and despite this, you can still go to the liquor store and buy enough vodka to kill yourself with.

Does medical science have similar warnings about marijuana?