Marijuana Legliazation Bill Unvieled

EMNofSeattle said:

It would end up like firearms laws in the US, a small group of highly restrictive states constantly griping that their inability to control their criminals is someone else's fault.

and in fact with Marijuana it's already happened, I think Nebraska has an ongoing lawsuit with Colorado over legal pot, and some property owners as well as the States of Nebraska and Oklahoma have a RICO (racketeering) suit ongoing with Colorado weed businesses, I guess alleging that the federally illegal businesses are rackets that are causing financial damage to their states. They basically again, want to blame someone else for their problems. I don't know if the laws in Canada permit racketeering suits or provinces to sue each other in that regard, but it is happending in the US.

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like something that could happen here but one never knows. All it takes is an attention-starved politician and a headline-starved news medium and anything can happen.
It's all so ridiculous. We're talking about a plant that was freely available for thousands of years and never a problem but now, since conservative Christians decided it's immoral or something there's a huge problem in society because of it.

Carjosse said:

I very much doubt it, it would probably require a negotiation with the US federal government and to them marijuana is still technically illegal.

Click to expand...

Would it? I think that the government could pass a law permitting CBSA officers to allow a certain amount on travelers to pass.

What I'm getting at is I don't think this bill is anything other than a money grab. And I think that it will be taxed too heavily that it will simply create another illegal industry, like smuggling cigarettes from the states to avoid the unreasonable taxes on legal smokes in Canada.

I think the liberal party base should push for a better bill, im of the opinion that no legal product should be subject to any taxes over the regular sales tax but that's never going to fly, all I'm saying is, make sure the bill is reasonable, because we've created a problem in WA that few talk about, which is that the illegal trade is continuing, the taxes are high enough that illegal growing is encouraged.

Any legalization bill should include provisions for low taxes and legal import.

If the liberals have the seats to make it happen don't settle for a bad piece of legislation

EMNofSeattle said:

Would it? I think that the government could pass a law permitting CBSA officers to allow a certain amount on travelers to pass.

What I'm getting at is I don't think this bill is anything other than a money grab. And I think that it will be taxed too heavily that it will simply create another illegal industry, like smuggling cigarettes from the states to avoid the unreasonable taxes on legal smokes in Canada.

I think the liberal party base should push for a better bill, im of the opinion that no legal product should be subject to any taxes over the regular sales tax but that's never going to fly, all I'm saying is, make sure the bill is reasonable, because we've created a problem in WA that few talk about, which is that the illegal trade is continuing, the taxes are high enough that illegal growing is encouraged.

Any legalization bill should include provisions for low taxes and legal import.

If the liberals have the seats to make it happen don't settle for a bad piece of legislation

Click to expand...

I think the US allowing it to leave would be an issue. Without reading the whole bill the only coverage I can find is that it does regulate import/export of marijuana.

Grand Mal said:

Doesn't sound like something that could happen here but one never knows. All it takes is an attention-starved politician and a headline-starved news medium and anything can happen.
It's all so ridiculous. We're talking about a plant that was freely available for thousands of years and never a problem but now, since conservative Christians decided it's immoral or something there's a huge problem in society because of it.

Click to expand...

Listen I have no problem with legal weed but we don't have to go far to know why it was outlawed, at least in America, products containing cannabis were part of many medicine scams in the 19th century, and when the pure food and drug act was passed it required medicines list contents. Cannabis had a bad reputation and was banned in many states from being an ingredient in medicines, a little later on during prohibition it was banned recreationally, because we had banned alcohol at the time, but it wasn't just conservative christians, you can look at every possible statistic from that era, alcohol and drug abuse were major social problems costing the public and private charities a lot of money and resources, society in general was more Christian (I wouldn't say conservative) but Christianity didn't create drug and alcohol problems. Regardless of whether you support legal marijuana (I do) to lay the blame on Christian's wanting to control everyone is to say the least, overly simplistic

canada isn't as hip as i thought if even ecuador is more liberal

chromium said:

canada isn't as hip as i thought if even ecuador is more liberal

Click to expand...

And we all know how many American leftists wanted to emigrate to Ecuador after Trumps election.....

In an unrelated note, some parts of Canada are pretty cool, Victoria to Nanaimo is a pretty happening neighborhood these days, stay outta Vancouver though, it's just like Seattle, heroin addicts roam the streets even Los Angeles is cleaner then Vancouver I think.

Whistlers pretty hip, lotta hot Aussie women working there during ski season

But I wouldn't judge how "hip" a country is just based on marijuana laws. There's nowhere in Ecuador I want to visit

Carjosse said:

I think the US government proves that is definitely not the case.

Click to expand...

Politics have gotten unusually bad in the last decade, but that's not quite the norm over time

EMNofSeattle said:

And we all know how many American leftists wanted to emigrate to Ecuador after Trumps election.....

Click to expand...

no need, we have colorado now. Although the devil trump is trying to take even that away, with his terrorist DEA

EMNofSeattle said:

But I wouldn't judge how "hip" a country is just based on marijuana laws. There's nowhere in Ecuador I want to visit

Click to expand...

it's more like a prerequisite to being hip, not a guarantee

Carjosse said:

I think the US allowing it to leave would be an issue. Without reading the whole bill the only coverage I can find is that it does regulate import/export of marijuana.

Click to expand...

from other countries where it is legal? Like if I flew in to Trudeau airport from Lisbon (Portugal) with a joint would that be legal upon declaration?

It is time for drug overhaul in both the US and Canada, not just on Marijuana. Like how Khat is banned too

EMNofSeattle said:

Politics have gotten unusually bad in the last decade, but that's not quite the norm over time

Click to expand...

I would beg to differ but a multi-party system is better for democracy and still works. The point of government is not to be the most efficient but to strike a balance between representation and efficiency. Just look at Singapore, its government is considered very efficient but the country is very authoritarian and rights are curtailed in the name of efficient government.

EMNofSeattle said:

from other countries where it is legal? Like if I flew in to Trudeau airport from Lisbon (Portugal) with a joint would that be legal upon declaration?

It is time for drug overhaul in both the US and Canada, not just on Marijuana. Like how Khat is banned too

Click to expand...

I am not reading the entire bill to figure that out but I would guess so. Knowing how it works with alcohol it might actually be easier to do that than to transfer it form province to province.

Carjosse said:

I would beg to differ but a multi-party system is better for democracy and still works. The point of government is not to be the most efficient but to strike a balance between representation and efficiency. Just look at Singapore, its government is considered very efficient but the country is very authoritarian and rights are curtailed in the name of efficient government.

Click to expand...

Yeah but that's because in Singapore people want that style of government. 80-90 percent of the population thinks hanging is proportional punishment to smuggling drugs. Asian societies are far more regimented and supportive of law and order then European ones, that is not a function of first past the post district voting in a two party system, it's a function of a de facto one party state in a culture where individual rights are below the authority of the state where 90% of voters agree on every issue.

EMNofSeattle said:

Yeah but that's because in Singapore people want that style of government. 80-90 percent of the population thinks hanging is proportional punishment to smuggling drugs. Asian societies are far more regimented and supportive of law and order then European ones, that is not a function of first past the post district voting in a two party system, it's a function of a de facto one party state because 90% of voters agree on every issue.

Click to expand...

Part of the reason a multi-party system is necessary people especially in the West have very diverse interests and options. Having only two parties means that people are forced to vote for parties who may not and usually do not represent most of their interests and opinions.

Carjosse said:

Part of the reason a multi-party system is necessary people especially in the West have very diverse interests and options. Having only two parties means that people are forced to vote for parties who may not and usually do not represent most of their interests and opinions.

Click to expand...

But is the solution to create a parliamentary system where there's a dozen single issue parties like in Israel?

I don't think we need more parties because what happens is regional and issue driven factions emerge within the framework of the larger party. I having rejoined the Republican Party in a working class rural community in WA state, I don't think the same as one in South Carolina by a long shot, or as one in some wealthy suburb in New Jersey. We have overall principles but we are factioned by interest. Same with the democrats. But existenting in the same party makes all of us more powerful then if I was in the "western Washington salmon and NRA party" and the South Carolinian is in the "Jesus, low taxes, and no abortion party" or what have you, building a coalition government of all of us as we exist in the general party would be a nightmare

EMNofSeattle said:

But is the solution to create a parliamentary system where there's a dozen single issue parties like in Israel?

I don't think we need more parties because what happens is regional and issue driven factions emerge within the framework of the larger party. I having rejoined the Republican Party in a working class rural community in WA state, I don't think the same as one in South Carolina by a long shot, or as one in some wealthy suburb in New Jersey. We have overall principles but we are factioned by interest. Same with the democrats. But existenting in the same party makes all of us more powerful then if I was in the "western Washington salmon and NRA party" and the South Carolinian is in the "Jesus, low taxes, and no abortion party" or what have you, building a coalition government of all of us as we exist in the general party would be a nightmare

Click to expand...

Many other countries have functioning have functioning multi-party systems and it allows for better representation. A coalition allows different parties to represent the different interests of the people they represent. Take the Dutch for example a perfectly healthy and efficient government based on multiple parties. To pretend that the Republican and Democrats do not have major factional infighting is asinine. Just look at what is going on right now, Republicans are fighting Republicans. The Conservatives here are much the same way but the cracks are definitely showing between the the more progressive faction of the former Progressive Conservatives and the more hard-right faction of Harper's Reform Party.

Carjosse said:

Many other countries have functioning have functioning multi-party systems and it allows for better representation. A coalition allows different parties to represent the different interests of the people they represent. Take the Dutch for example a perfectly healthy and efficient government based on multiple parties. To pretend that the Republican and Democrats do not have major factional infighting is asinine. Just look at what is going on right now, Republicans are fighting Republicans. The Conservatives here are much the same way but the cracks are definitely showing between the the more progressive faction of the former Progressive Conservatives and the more hard-right faction of Harper's Reform Party.

Click to expand...

Just a quick correction, I did not deny the factional infighting, in fact that's part of my argument as to why the two party system is representative of diverse interests, the factional element effectively functions as multiple parties while at the same time making positive movement on legislation easier.

Many people complain about the two parties, but (and I'm not accusing you or anyone on the forum of this, just personal observation of people I know, your experience may vary) these are people that I will talk to and they don't even know who their congressman is, they often don't vote or vote party line, they don't go to Olympia (or their state capitol) and testify at bill hearings or write their representatives, or even debate with candidates on their twitter feed? I do all these things. so really is it that the system doesn't represent enough interests? Or that there's interests that simply don't make an effort to be represented ? Citizenship is a verb, or at least that's how I view it.

That's off on a tangent I know, and I'm not opposed to third parties, but in the US I never see third parties make an effort to win races either.

I do not dispute that citizens of other countries have different political systems that work for them and I'm happy for them, no sarcasm I really am, but I don't see this system working in the US and I don't feel that our problem stems from lack of a proportional parliament with a dozen different parties forming coalitions, I feel our problem comes from lack of civic engagement and civil education, that won't be fixed by uprooting our whole political system and changing it.

I'm also skeptical of the motives of people who propose these things from time to time, like Trudeau's electoral reform looked to me like a way to structure permanent rule of one party, and he wasn't willing to put it to referendum

EMNofSeattle said:

Listen I have no problem with legal weed but we don't have to go far to know why it was outlawed, at least in America, products containing cannabis were part of many medicine scams in the 19th century, and when the pure food and drug act was passed it required medicines list contents. Cannabis had a bad reputation and was banned in many states from being an ingredient in medicines, a little later on during prohibition it was banned recreationally, because we had banned alcohol at the time, but it wasn't just conservative christians, you can look at every possible statistic from that era, alcohol and drug abuse were major social problems costing the public and private charities a lot of money and resources, society in general was more Christian (I wouldn't say conservative) but Christianity didn't create drug and alcohol problems. Regardless of whether you support legal marijuana (I do) to lay the blame on Christian's wanting to control everyone is to say the least, overly simplistic

Click to expand...

Way I see it that plant was freely available for thousnds of years. Never a problem. All of a sudden drastic measures are needed to suppress it? It's almost a kind of hubris, saying we here, at this time in this place, have been uniqely able to turn something so neutral and benign into a threat to society.
Hopefully we've learned that all prohibition does is make really nasty people really rich, and that legislation has seldom solved a social problem. If anything, lots of social problems have been solved by eliminating bad laws.