Canada Goes to Pot

My bad, they were/are against recreational marijuana. After looking at the online map of how the counties voted in Michigan I noticed the majority of votes against recreational marijuana were in areas with a high percentage of coffin dodgers/retired folks.

A lot of the counties that voted NO this time around voted for medical marijuana when it was on the ballot.
Interesting. It would probably be the same here. I know a few over 70s who are vehemently anti dope, usually because their kids got very messed by it. They’re also the type who don’t question authority, abide laws because they are there rather than because they are right and fear the sky pixie.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Hmmm

There's a link in the story to a BBC story:

That in turn has a 25 minute video. I haven't watched it yet, but it looks interesting.
 
It's going on the ballot at the next election for our State, I reckon it'll pass simply because the stuff is everywhere. It's legal for Medicinal use so the next step is legal for recreational use.
 
Frequent cannabis use and high-strength varieties are likely to increase the chance of mental health problems among users, according to researchers behind the largest study of its kind.

Experts have previously flagged a link between cannabis use and psychosis, particularly among vulnerable people with heavy use of the drug. Now research suggests the potency of the cannabis is also important, with patterns in cannabis use linked to how often new cases of psychotic disorders arise in different cities.
The study estimated that 30% of first-time cases of psychotic disorders in south London, and half of those in Amsterdam, could be avoided if high-potency cannabis was not available. The team says that equates to about 60 fewer cases per year in south London.
 
The UK 'will legalise cannabis', say MPs

I'm a bit surprised they think it will be that soon, I've always assumed cannabis will be legalised over here at some point but would have thought about 20 years, probably with a downgrading to class C in the next 5-10 years.
 
Now we'll see if the licencing system actually works and how much was for illicit resale.
Licenced suppliers have been expanding capacity rapidly, but it will probably be a couple of years yet before they can grow enough to supply the market. At the moment there is still a significant black market filling the gap, especially with those people who have been sticking with their pre-legalisation supplier.

Over the longer term advertising, branding, and quality will determine whether the licensed suppliers can reduce the unlicensed suppliers to an insignificant share of the market, much as has been the case with alcohol. For the near term though it just isn't physically possible.

I haven't noticed any serious negative effects from the legalisation so far. It probably helps that tobacco is also heavily regulated with heavy restrictions on where it can be smoked, so the same rules could be applied to cannabis, limiting the public nuisance factor.

The main area of future development so far as a legal perspective is concerned is coming up with simple roadside cannabis intoxication tests which can be applied by the police to drivers in the same way they use alcohol breathalysers. There is work being done on both the measurement devices, but also on what the physical effects of cannabis intoxication are and what the appropriate legal intoxication limits should be. I'm not aware of any significant amount of problems with people driving while under the influence of cannabis, and alcohol is still the main problem in this respect.

The cannabis legalisation story faded from the news fairly quickly in Canada after a short while. When it is in the news it's mainly stories about the provincial government mismanaging retail license issuing in terms of being behind target in terms of actually issuing them (which by the way is another reason for unlicensed suppliers still being in the market), or neighbours complaining about smell and traffic issues with new growing operations (where its not much different from say a pig farm).

Even if the UK were to decide today to legalise cannabis it would take several years to get the regulatory and licensing system in place, although the UK could probably learn a lot from what Canada has done in that respect.
 
Cannabis is like tobacco in that nobody is claiming that it's good for you. What has happened in Canada is that it has been put into the same category as tobacco or excessive amounts of alcohol. It is legal, but various various tax and regulatory restrictions are put in place to try to minimise the harm caused by it and to change the social environment surrounding it.
 
The UK 'will legalise cannabis', say MPs

I'm a bit surprised they think it will be that soon, I've always assumed cannabis will be legalised over here at some point but would have thought about 20 years, probably with a downgrading to class C in the next 5-10 years.
Walking around London it seems "quasi-legal" anyways...as long as you're not openly taking the piss too much...

Canada, quite a lot of the U.S (medical and rec), New Zealand (medical already legal) - total legalization on the ballot next year.....so yeah why shouldn't the UK not do it and make less work for the cops. People who want to smoke will always smoke, those not inclined (like me) won't, simples.
 
Licenced suppliers have been expanding capacity rapidly, but it will probably be a couple of years yet before they can grow enough to supply the market. At the moment there is still a significant black market filling the gap, especially with those people who have been sticking with their pre-legalisation supplier.

Over the longer term advertising, branding, and quality will determine whether the licensed suppliers can reduce the unlicensed suppliers to an insignificant share of the market, much as has been the case with alcohol. For the near term though it just isn't physically possible.

I haven't noticed any serious negative effects from the legalisation so far. It probably helps that tobacco is also heavily regulated with heavy restrictions on where it can be smoked, so the same rules could be applied to cannabis, limiting the public nuisance factor.

The main area of future development so far as a legal perspective is concerned is coming up with simple roadside cannabis intoxication tests which can be applied by the police to drivers in the same way they use alcohol breathalysers. There is work being done on both the measurement devices, but also on what the physical effects of cannabis intoxication are and what the appropriate legal intoxication limits should be. I'm not aware of any significant amount of problems with people driving while under the influence of cannabis, and alcohol is still the main problem in this respect.

The cannabis legalisation story faded from the news fairly quickly in Canada after a short while. When it is in the news it's mainly stories about the provincial government mismanaging retail license issuing in terms of being behind target in terms of actually issuing them (which by the way is another reason for unlicensed suppliers still being in the market), or neighbours complaining about smell and traffic issues with new growing operations (where its not much different from say a pig farm).

Even if the UK were to decide today to legalise cannabis it would take several years to get the regulatory and licensing system in place, although the UK could probably learn a lot from what Canada has done in that respect.
Yers thanks for that. From memory it was rather odd that people seem to think that if they are licenced in their own country,they didn’t have to bother here. Under the RTA it always was a urine or blood sample as a result of a moving traffic offence. But since the chances were drugs were found, possession tended to override the driving offence. But when we say legalised, short of repealing the DTA, importation and possession will remain subject to licence. It’s what the law is and is likely to remain. The offence is not importation, it’s importation /possession without a licence.
 
I've just watched the BBC video above, and it is definitely worth seeing.

However, something that in my opinion the reporter doesn't make clear enough is that Vancouver is very atypical compared to the rest of the country. For decades cannabis was more widely used there and they were the destination in the country for people who went there for the greater tolerance of aberrant behaviour, ready availability of drugs, as well as the more normal reasons such as the milder climate and boyant economy.

The scenes shot in Toronto and the people there were more typical of the rest of the country.
 
Licenced suppliers have been expanding capacity rapidly, but it will probably be a couple of years yet before they can grow enough to supply the market. At the moment there is still a significant black market filling the gap, especially with those people who have been sticking with their pre-legalisation supplier.

Over the longer term advertising, branding, and quality will determine whether the licensed suppliers can reduce the unlicensed suppliers to an insignificant share of the market, much as has been the case with alcohol. For the near term though it just isn't physically possible.

I haven't noticed any serious negative effects from the legalisation so far. It probably helps that tobacco is also heavily regulated with heavy restrictions on where it can be smoked, so the same rules could be applied to cannabis, limiting the public nuisance factor.

The main area of future development so far as a legal perspective is concerned is coming up with simple roadside cannabis intoxication tests which can be applied by the police to drivers in the same way they use alcohol breathalysers. There is work being done on both the measurement devices, but also on what the physical effects of cannabis intoxication are and what the appropriate legal intoxication limits should be. I'm not aware of any significant amount of problems with people driving while under the influence of cannabis, and alcohol is still the main problem in this respect.

The cannabis legalisation story faded from the news fairly quickly in Canada after a short while. When it is in the news it's mainly stories about the provincial government mismanaging retail license issuing in terms of being behind target in terms of actually issuing them (which by the way is another reason for unlicensed suppliers still being in the market), or neighbours complaining about smell and traffic issues with new growing operations (where its not much different from say a pig farm).

Even if the UK were to decide today to legalise cannabis it would take several years to get the regulatory and licensing system in place, although the UK could probably learn a lot from what Canada has done in that respect.
Here in Australia, the police carry out random breath and drug testing. The drug test is a swab, which tests for THC. Unlike alcohol, there is zero tolerance. Any THC and you are prosecuted.

The problem is that the test will pick up residual THC from a joint smoked a week or more previously. This is because decarboxylated THC is stored in the fat cells and metabolised back into THC-A over time. It is then secreted our in the urine.

Urine tests indicate THC-A, which will be present in the urine for up to two weeks after smoking.

Interestingly, orally consumer cannabis is metabolised far quicker. Taken sublingually (under the tongue) or swallowed on a spoon and they will show up on both a swab and urine test for a few hours. 8 hours later, they’re gone. Taken in a capsule, they won’t detect at all on the swab but will show up in the urine for up to 8 hours.

Legislators have a lot to get right here. At the moment, I could legally smoke a joint on holiday in Canada, come back to Aus two weeks later, get swabbed at an RBT and lose my licence. If I was working in a tested workplace I could also lose my job.

To make it worse, I could have a legally written prescription from my doctor, take a licenced medicine, test positive and lose both licence and job. And I wouldn’t ever have been high or unfit to drive or work.
 
Here in Australia, the police carry out random breath and drug testing. The drug test is a swab, which tests for THC. Unlike alcohol, there is zero tolerance. Any THC and you are prosecuted.

The problem is that the test will pick up residual THC from a joint smoked a week or more previously. This is because decarboxylated THC is stored in the fat cells and metabolised back into THC-A over time. It is then secreted our in the urine.

Urine tests indicate THC-A, which will be present in the urine for up to two weeks after smoking.

Interestingly, orally consumer cannabis is metabolised far quicker. Taken sublingually (under the tongue) or swallowed on a spoon and they will show up on both a swab and urine test for a few hours. 8 hours later, they’re gone. Taken in a capsule, they won’t detect at all on the swab but will show up in the urine for up to 8 hours.

Legislators have a lot to get right here. At the moment, I could legally smoke a joint on holiday in Canada, come back to Aus two weeks later, get swabbed at an RBT and lose my licence. If I was working in a tested workplace I could also lose my job.

To make it worse, I could have a legally written prescription from my doctor, take a licenced medicine, test positive and lose both licence and job. And I wouldn’t ever have been high or unfit to drive or work.
The funny thing is the Aussie cu-nt who lives below me smokes so much weed almost every night - go outside dude! , sometimes I think I would be getting indirect high or residue in me...thankfully he is about to go back to OZ in a week, so didn't want to bitch too much about it.
 

Latest Threads

Top