Recreational marijuana legal here in Canada as of tomorrow

[Domo]

Yes.

I feel if you don't think it should be legal, you should also be fighting to make alcohol, tobacco, gambling, high caloric sugary foods, etc. illegal as well. And if you do, I can respect that. But just calling out marijuana I can't get behind.

Now, arguing against myself, going the other way, I guess you could say if you want all the above legal, then other drugs should be as well. But there is a key difference, IMO between marijuana and real drugs like heroin and cocaine. The latter have a demonstrative effect on the user. We have to draw the line somewhere, but marijuana is not the marker.

To be fair, alcohol, tobacco, gambling and unhealthy foods are all extremely discouraged. So are things like plastic packaging. Alcohol is taxed to the ends of the earth, as is tobacco (which also sports pictures of decayed laungs on carton covers and cannot be advertised), gambling has warnings in all adverts and foods high in sugar, salt and fat (all guilty of causing diabetes) are all discouraged as well with high levels all noted on the covering packages.

It's not the same as being illegal, but it's a start

 

[dlavender]

To be fair, alcohol, tobacco, gambling and unhealthy foods are all extremely discouraged. So are things like plastic packaging. Alcohol is taxed to the ends of the earth, as is tobacco (which also sports pictures of decayed laungs on carton covers and cannot be advertised), gambling has warnings in all adverts and foods high in sugar, salt and fat (all guilty of causing diabetes) are all discouraged as well with high levels all noted on the covering packages.

It's not the same as being illegal, but it's a start

And they should do the same with marijuana.

Regulate and tax the crap out of it.

That would be better than the current system of spending so much money to keep it illegal.

 

[Domo]

And they should do the same with marijuana.

Regulate and tax the crap out of it.

That would be better than the current system of spending so much money to keep it illegal.

I'm split. I mean, I can see the positives to legalising it. But I have experienced just too much heartache at the hands of this drug to remain objective.

 

[dlavender]

I'm split. I mean, I can see the positives to legalising it. But I have experienced just too much heartache at the hands of this drug to remain objective.

That’s certainly fair.

Ive seen the opposite, where the illegal aspect has hurt some truly good people.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation why it should be illegal when there are other more dangerous drugs (alcohol and tobacco) that are legal. And because of the federal prohibition on cannabis sativa, industrial hemp can't be grown in the US. And that it's Schedule I when even cocaine is Schedule II. And when I've heard some concerns, it seems to be far more rooted in a belief that pot smokers are all going to turn into stereotypical potheads.

I do understand that there are negatives. Intentionally smoking or taking in vapors is inherently unhealthy, and there are of course safety concerns from intoxication. However, we generally allow adults to decide if they want to engage in dangerous or unhealthy behavior.

How exactly is smoking tobacco more dangerous than smoking marijuana? They both have lung cancer risks and expose others to second-hand smoke and the dangers associated with that. Cigarette smoke however is not going to make the user or others exposed to the smoke impaired, or in any way affect their ability to work/ perform tasks that require mental clarity and a quick reaction time. Marijuana use has neurological and cognitive effects that tobacco does not have. Numerous studies have shown the link between regular marijuana use and memory loss, decrease in IQ and cognitive thinking, as well as significant alterations in actual brain structure. I find it interesting that there's such a huge campaign against cigarette smoking, while smoking marijuana recreationally is being advocated for.

Comparing alcohol and marijuana is a difficult issue. They are two completely different kinds of substances. They both certainly have potential for abuse and can affect one's mental clarity and slow down their reflexes. I can't argue that for many people, alcohol use will make them far more violent than if they were to use marijuana. Someone having a drink, however, does not affect the mental clarity of those around them or place them at second-hand smoke exposure risks.

Alcohol can also be easily, quickly, and accurately tested by police and employers to decrease the risk of drivers and employees from exposing others to danger while driving or working impaired. While research is being done to find an equivalent test for marijuana, right now the saliva tests are not completely accurate, have potential for manipulation, and also have a higher than what should be acceptable false positive rate. We don't have a widely accepted standard for what classifies being intoxicated and it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain based solely on the amount of marijuana in a person's body that the person is currently intoxicated, smoked yesterday, or was merely exposed to second-hand smoke. This is personally the biggest reason I am opposed to legalization. We need to do more research to create a standard for what constitutes intoxication and a way to quickly and accurately measure that, and we just aren't there yet. Many studies have shown that people who test far lower than the 5 ng/mL acceptable amount in certain states perform in mental and physical testing in a manner comparative to someone intoxicated. The roadside THC device currently being tested in MI only detects 25 ng/mL or higher according to the manufacturer.

Several studies indicate a clear link between marijuana use and schizophrenia and show that the risks are greater the younger someone starts using. Few teens and young adults seem to be aware of these potential risks.

 

[KristenB17]

Nothing is wrong with it.

 

[Aladora]

I'm encouraged by the constant progress towards legalization everywhere.

Now, if Canada could just do something about those winters, I'd be brushing up on my French

Come to BC, mild winters and very few people speak French.

 

[bcla]

Alcohol can also be easily, quickly, and accurately tested by police and employers to decrease the risk of drivers and employees from exposing others to danger while driving or working impaired. While research is being done to find an equivalent test for marijuana, right now the saliva tests are not completely accurate, have potential for manipulation, and also have a higher than what should be acceptable false positive rate. We don't have a widely accepted standard for what classifies being intoxicated and it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain based solely on the amount of marijuana in a person's body that the person is currently intoxicated, smoked yesterday, or was merely exposed to second-hand smoke. This is personally the biggest reason I am opposed to legalization. We need to do more research to create a standard for what constitutes intoxication and a way to quickly and accurately measure that, and we just aren't there yet. Many studies have shown that people who test far lower than the 5 ng/mL acceptable amount in certain states perform in mental and physical testing in a manner comparative to someone intoxicated. The roadside THC device currently being tested in MI only detects 25 ng/mL or higher according to the manufacturer.

Several studies indicate a clear link between marijuana use and schizophrenia and show that the risks are greater the younger someone starts using. Few teens and young adults seem to be aware of these potential risks.

That's just one risk factor, and for the most part I wouldn't encourage anyone to start smoking marijuana any more than I'd encourage anyone to start smoking tobacco. However, I'm a big believer in allowing adults to make up their own minds.

As for testing, it's of course going to be a far more difficult thing to do compared to alcohol. We have decades of accurate testing procedures that directly or indirectly test for bulk amounts of alcohol in the bloodstream as well as uniform standards for what is considered legally impaired. Marijuana is far more complicated since THC remains in the bloodstream for days or even weeks as it's absorbed and released by fatty tissues. What we have now are tests that are premised on zero tolerance and illegality. It's going to take a while before there's any uniform understanding of how to test for relative intoxication. As it stands now, there's really no test that can determine if someone is legally impaired from any number of other legal/illegal drugs including antihistamines and street drugs.

 

[Domo]

Nothing is wrong with it.

Unless you react to it adversely and experience chronic psychotic symptoms.

 

[Domo]

One word of advice:

As with drinking, imbibing cannabis is something to be tried at home first, safely with people around you that you know, in case you react in a bad way. That way if you absolutely HAVE to punch some drugs, you'll be surrounded by people you love looking out for you.

 

[Fldisneyfamily4321]

The part that surprises me is if they really didn't believe it was appropriate for you (for whatever reason) that they'd suggest you go on-line to get a card. That just makes no sense.

Not surprising at all really .. not just any dr can “ prescribe “ it , they have to take a course and get licensed to do that plus it’s never called a prescription it’s a “ recommendation “ . My PM doc decide against the class because of the hassle but he encouraged me to see a dr that could .

 

[ronandannette]

Not surprising at all really .. not just any dr can “ prescribe “ it , they have to take a course and get licensed to do that plus it’s never called a prescription it’s a “ recommendation “ . My PM doc decide against the class because of the hassle but he encouraged me to see a dr that could .

I don’t think that’s the case here in Canada where both I and the poster I was quoting live. I also understand being referred to another doctor, but don’t like the idea of on-line web docs that prescribe for a fee without really knowing the patient.

And they should do the same with marijuana.
Regulate and tax the crap out of it.

That would be better than the current system of spending so much money to keep it illegal.

Sin-tax on alcohol and tobacco is a little different in that there really aren’t any ways for people to acquire those substances outside the legal channels. Regular pot users already have a supply chain and if the prices at the legal outlets are higher, it’s very unrealistic to assume people will voluntarily line up to pay them. It will be very interesting to see over time if the revenue generated to the government through the legal outlets is in excess of the costs of enacting and enforcing the regulations.

 

[cabanafrau]

How exactly is smoking tobacco more dangerous than smoking marijuana? They both have lung cancer risks and expose others to second-hand smoke and the dangers associated with that. Cigarette smoke however is not going to make the user or others exposed to the smoke impaired, or in any way affect their ability to work/ perform tasks that require mental clarity and a quick reaction time. Marijuana use has neurological and cognitive effects that tobacco does not have. Numerous studies have shown the link between regular marijuana use and memory loss, decrease in IQ and cognitive thinking, as well as significant alterations in actual brain structure. I find it interesting that there's such a huge campaign against cigarette smoking, while smoking marijuana recreationally is being advocated for.

Comparing alcohol and marijuana is a difficult issue. They are two completely different kinds of substances. They both certainly have potential for abuse and can affect one's mental clarity and slow down their reflexes. I can't argue that for many people, alcohol use will make them far more violent than if they were to use marijuana. Someone having a drink, however, does not affect the mental clarity of those around them or place them at second-hand smoke exposure risks.

Alcohol can also be easily, quickly, and accurately tested by police and employers to decrease the risk of drivers and employees from exposing others to danger while driving or working impaired. While research is being done to find an equivalent test for marijuana, right now the saliva tests are not completely accurate, have potential for manipulation, and also have a higher than what should be acceptable false positive rate. We don't have a widely accepted standard for what classifies being intoxicated and it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain based solely on the amount of marijuana in a person's body that the person is currently intoxicated, smoked yesterday, or was merely exposed to second-hand smoke. This is personally the biggest reason I am opposed to legalization. We need to do more research to create a standard for what constitutes intoxication and a way to quickly and accurately measure that, and we just aren't there yet. Many studies have shown that people who test far lower than the 5 ng/mL acceptable amount in certain states perform in mental and physical testing in a manner comparative to someone intoxicated. The roadside THC device currently being tested in MI only detects 25 ng/mL or higher according to the manufacturer.

Several studies indicate a clear link between marijuana use and schizophrenia and show that the risks are greater the younger someone starts using. Few teens and young adults seem to be aware of these potential risks.

I also think the stereotypical image of the chill attitude of the marijuana user doesn't really present a full picture.

It certainly doesn't fit with the large number of domestic violence cases I've seen where the aggressor(quite often a repeat offender) is also under the influence at the time of the offense(s). Usage doesn't seem to slow down the criminal behavior of those on probation or parole for other offenses -- setting aside entirely the fact that usage in and of itself is a violation of probation or parole and quite often not charged or dismissed when sentencing for other violations in a plea deal. It's for darned sure it doesn't help lazy butt parents get motivated, find any type of legal employment or maintain any type of a safe or suitable living situation for their children.

The one thing all of these types of situations have in common is users who are determined above all else to keep using marijuana.

 

[Fldisneyfamily4321]

I don’t think that’s the case here in Canada where both I and the poster I was quoting live. I also understand being referred to another doctor, but don’t like the idea of on-line web docs that prescribe for a fee without really knowing the patient.

Sin-tax on alcohol and tobacco is a little different in that there really aren’t any ways for people to acquire those substances outside the legal channels. Regular pot users already have a supply chain and if the prices at the legal outlets are higher, it’s very unrealistic to assume people will voluntarily line up to pay them. It will be very interesting to see over time if the revenue generated to the government through the legal outlets is in excess of the costs of enacting and enforcing the regulations.

With this seeing a doc in person or on web cam makes ZERO difference, they do not do “ exams “ they simply look at your documents YOU provide from your dr about your particular illness or issue and decide if you qualify.

 

[dlavender]

Sin-tax on alcohol and tobacco is a little different in that there really aren’t any ways for people to acquire those substances outside the legal channels. Regular pot users already have a supply chain and if the prices at the legal outlets are higher, it’s very unrealistic to assume people will voluntarily line up to pay them. It will be very interesting to see over time if the revenue generated to the government through the legal outlets is in excess of the costs of enacting and enforcing the regulations.

That's true, but you'd have to think legally growing will bring down costs substantially so that when tax is added, it brings it to current "street pricing" (Of course I have no idea what that may or may not be.... )

Also, the savings of costs from prosecuting and keeping it illegal should outweigh or at least even out the costs of regulating it.

 

[bcla]

Sin-tax on alcohol and tobacco is a little different in that there really aren’t any ways for people to acquire those substances outside the legal channels. Regular pot users already have a supply chain and if the prices at the legal outlets are higher, it’s very unrealistic to assume people will voluntarily line up to pay them. It will be very interesting to see over time if the revenue generated to the government through the legal outlets is in excess of the costs of enacting and enforcing the regulations.

Oh - there are plenty of ways to acquire those outside of state/provincial taxation. That's kind of the definition of moonshine. And tobacco finds all sorts of ways of avoiding taxation, with the most obvious being illegal shipping across borders. I heard about some tribes in the United States that were making their own brands and selling them on reservations to those outside the tribe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/nyregion/indian-tribes-make-own-cigarettes-to-avoid-ny-tax.html

But yes, it's pretty obvious that there will still be street dealers for marjuana. However, I'm not sure if there's any mechanism to determine whether or not someone's personal stash is from a taxed/tested source. Having a label may no be enough. Just as an example, I remember bringing in some fruit purchased in Canada into the US. The US Customs agent at the BC preclearance station said it was OK to bring in as long as it had a label with a US origin. That didn't preclude us from putting some other cherries in a bag that said Washington state on it. So if that's going to be the standard for marijuana, one only needs to reuse a container from a legal purchase.

 

[bcla]

That's true, but you'd have to think legally growing will bring down costs substantially so that when tax is added, it brings it to current "street pricing" (Of course I have no idea what that may or may not be.... )

Also, the savings of costs from prosecuting and keeping it illegal should outweigh or at least even out the costs of regulating it.

Perhaps in Canada where the costs are often higher because it's often grown indoors. I'd still think that illegal sources might simply undercut legal pricing even with lower margins. Also - a lot of the illegal stuff is smuggled from Mexico or even grown illegally where the growers set up on public or private lands without permission, and grow. One telling of the "420" legend is about a secret stash of marijuabna grown at Point Reyes National Seashore.

But even then I'd think that you're right that it would be almost pointless to try and determine if someone's personal stash comes from a legal source or not. Why bother?

 

[mckennarose]

With this seeing a doc in person or on web cam makes ZERO difference, they do not do “ exams “ they simply look at your documents YOU provide from your dr about your particular illness or issue and decide if you qualify.

It's similar in PA and patients need to supply medical records with diagnosis/es; some are sent by their primary doctor and/or specialists and some hand carried to the recommending doctor. In addition, doctors will access affiliation medical databases if the patient uses a particular hospital affiliation and also access the prescription drug monitoring database in PA.

Some recommending doctors are not primary care physicians or specialists for a specific patient, they CAN be if their primary or specialist decides to become certified to recommend MMJ, but a MMJ doctor does not become a primary doctor for a patient in most cases. They don't prescribe other medicines or treatments, don't do any testing and don't treat other ailments or illnesses. They specifically review the patient's history to recommend MMJ.

 

[Lilsia]

You haven't provided thoughts on your opinion. Why don't you like it?

My opinion, if adults can make the choice to drink alcohol or not, they should be able to make the choice to use marijuana or not.

It's a harmless plant. It is non-addictive. Effects are far worse with alcohol. It's completely natural, the only "drug" that I know of that is used without any processing. Really, it's just a plant and not a drug. The way people drive today, I almost say it should be a requirement to smoke before getting behind the wheel. It's been shown countless times that people do better driving stoned than they do sober. If it was a requirement for driving, the worst high speed accidents would all be at 20 mph.

Do you actually know people who smoke pot? I work with young people that think it is cool to smoke weed and I can tell you that they have turned duuuummmbb. They have no focus, do not make wise decisions and even make dangerous ones all while under the influence. The idiocy that comes out of their mouths is actually alarming. The states that have legalized it have seen an increase in car accidents. Talk to any Jamaican person who has a family member that smokes weed. I have and what they all say is that they all have family or friends that have fried their brains and are now incoherent. Those people are functioning on a very basic level without being able to hold down a job or contribute in any way. Now that it is becoming legal opens it up for people to abuse it and smoke more then they might have otherwise. It is one thing to use it for extreme medical needs and another to be high while driving. It might not cause cancer but it is far from harmless, otherwise it would not have any mental affect on people and they would not smoke it.

 

[Domo]

Do you actually know people who smoke pot? I work with young people that think it is cool to smoke weed and I can tell you that they have turned duuuummmbb. They have no focus, do not make wise decisions and even make dangerous ones all while under the influence. The idiocy that comes out of their mouths is actually alarming. The states that have legalized it have seen an increase in car accidents. Talk to any Jamaican person who has a family member that smokes weed. I have and what they all say is that they all have family or friends that have fried their brains and are now incoherent. Those people are functioning on a very basic level without being able to hold down a job or contribute in any way. Now that it is becoming legal opens it up for people to abuse it and smoke more then they might have otherwise. It is one thing to use it for extreme medical needs and another to be high while driving. It might not cause cancer but it is far from harmless, otherwise it would not have any mental affect on people and they would not smoke it.

There is a line to be drawn. For the majority of users, it is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco (so still hazardous). But for a minority, who react badly, it is a Godawful thing to take. Case study: "J". I knew this person from a while back. He smoked some concentrated marijuana and reacted. Badly. He ended up on 900mg Clozapine in the Maudsley Hospital. His mother would visit him with Mc Donalds, which he would often throw against the wall in fits of rage. He suffered from disassociation. He thought the nurses were out to get him. Basically, he was far gone. Poor thing. Yes, he was a minority. But I'd rather not chance it unless it had a medicinal effect on me.