Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Washington voters approved legalized marijuana


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#91 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:39 PM

Hey, they even admitted it wouldn't fly in court and might not be enough to press charges, but that poster's assertion you made a rebuttal to was about an officer in the field identifying an impaired driver to proceed to any next steps, then you went off on a tangent about the court while telling them "that's not true". lolwut? You sure it's me with reading comprehension issues? I got what that poster was saying just fine, it was you who went on a wild tangent, and boy do you have an ego problem after someone tries to reiterate their post three times.

I disagree.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#92 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,534 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:52 PM

So prices are starting to surface estimating $300/ounce in Washington.. which is pretty damn cheap for an ounce, and can only get cheaper as legalised marijuana further legitimises and people who fell for government propaganda slowly realise your brain isn't an egg getting smashed by a frying pan when you take a hit.

Edited by zaibatsu, 12 November 2012 - 02:53 PM.

  • 0

#93 thehun

thehun

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:05 PM

Some people have a sensitivity to smoke. And, the Cancer Society suggests maybe you're wrong:




I'm not really worried either way...doesn't bother me if others want to indulge but, as I no longer do, don't really want my clothes, hair, etc. smelling of it. I'd say applying the same standard as liquor (not in public, although people still would/do), while driving, etc. is likely appropriate.

I am a user and I agree 100% that it should not be allowed in public, except in designated areas, like smoking and drinking. What you will see is coffee shops popping up everywhere which keeps it in confined areas. Also age to use should be the same as cigarettes or alcohol. Of course young kids will get it, but that is the same as alcohol and cigarettes. Lastly, tax the hell out of it and put that tax money to good use. Get the country out of debt and help people. It is a huge money maker that Canada is ignoring because they are dictated by the neighbours down south.

Anyone who argues that marijuana is a gateway drug has no idea. I have never done anything harder then grass. All my friends are the same.

Edited by thehun, 12 November 2012 - 06:07 PM.

  • 0

#94 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,534 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:52 PM

I am a user and I agree 100% that it should not be allowed in public, except in designated areas, like smoking and drinking. What you will see is coffee shops popping up everywhere which keeps it in confined areas. Also age to use should be the same as cigarettes or alcohol. Of course young kids will get it, but that is the same as alcohol and cigarettes. Lastly, tax the hell out of it and put that tax money to good use. Get the country out of debt and help people. It is a huge money maker that Canada is ignoring because they are dictated by the neighbours down south.

Anyone who argues that marijuana is a gateway drug has no idea. I have never done anything harder then grass. All my friends are the same.

Yep, same here too.

But once again, tax the hell out of it? Do you really trust where they are going to put that "tax money"? Is it necessary with all of the public (and now private too) non-smoking laws?

I don't like encouraging government to tax things merely because of the substance, they will come right back with open hands wanting more.

Edited by zaibatsu, 12 November 2012 - 08:05 PM.

  • 0

#95 thehun

thehun

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 03

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:19 AM

Yep, same here too.

But once again, tax the hell out of it? Do you really trust where they are going to put that "tax money"? Is it necessary with all of the public (and now private too) non-smoking laws?

I don't like encouraging government to tax things merely because of the substance, they will come right back with open hands wanting more.

I understand what you are saying, but I say the provision to taxing it would be to make sure that the tax money benefits all.
  • 0

#96 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,071 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:21 PM

Do you really trust where they are going to put that "tax money"?


My guess would be health care.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#97 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:51 PM

My guess would be health care.

More likely Consolidated General Revenue.

When the Glen Clark NDP government imposed a legal services tax on BC lawyers' bills which BTW were just passed onto consumers but sounded like the government was sticking it to lawyers (a provincial tax not levied on any other service) it was sold as going to help fund Legal Aid... never made it there. As the BC Branch of the Canadian Bar Association noted in its Budget submissions :

Legal services are the only professional services subject to a provincially-imposed tax (this was before HST). We defy anybody to explain why legal services should be taxed, when no other professional services are taxed.

...

To speak bluntly, the tax remains for one obvious reason: it raises money. But the government must also consider the damage the tax does, and the unfairness of it. Many unfair taxes would be successful at raising money. That alone is not enough to justify a tax.


Last year, the Committee recommended that the proceeds of the tax be applied to legal aid services. And while originally the tax was said to be for this purpose, the two things are unrelated Why should individuals who are in need of legal services for whatever reason, and who already may have great trouble paying legal fees, also have to bear the burden of funding legal aid, while the general public pays nothing? This makes no sense; the late Fred Gingell made that point 15 years ago; he was right.


The B.C. Branch of the Canadian Bar Association believes that adequate legal aid funding is the responsibility of all taxpayers, not only those who use legal services. We believe that access to justice is no less important than healthcare and education. Taxing access to justice to pay for healthcare and education is wrong.


Edited by Wetcoaster, 13 November 2012 - 04:21 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#98 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:58 PM

The US federal government is still formulating its response to the recent initiatives passed in Washington and Colorado legalizing marijuana.

Washington Governor Chris Christie plans to push ahead unless the feds obtain a court injunction.


U.S. gov't hasn't made a decision on possible block of Washington marijuana legalization: governor


Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire said Tuesday the federal government still hasn't decided whether to take action to block new laws legalizing marijuana in her state and Colorado.


Gregoire met with Deputy Attorney General James Cole in Washington, D.C. She told Cole she would prefer to know "sooner rather than later," because Washington state is in the process of getting ready to decriminalize pot, which is still illegal under federal law.


"I told them, 'Make no mistake, that absent an injunction of some sort, it's our intent to implement decriminalization,'" Gregoire told The Associated Press. "I don't want to spend a lot of money implementing this if you are going to attempt to block it."



Initiative 502 passed last week with 55 per cent of the vote in the state. It decriminalizes the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana beginning Dec. 6. The state would license the growing, processing and labeling of marijuana, but state officials have a year to come up with those rules before sales can begin.


Colorado also passed a measure legalizing the drug.


Federal lawyers are reviewing the two new state laws, trying to determine what their response will be, Gregoire said.


"It's not a simple analysis for them," she said. "There's a difference between our two initiatives, and they want to look at that. They clearly want to know how things are going to flow, how regulations develop, how enforcement would be taken, taxes would be gathered."


She said she pressed Cole as to whether the ultimate federal response would treat both Washington and Colorado the same way, and Justice Department officials indicated to her that that was their intent.


In Washington, home-growing marijuana for recreational reasons remains barred, as does the public display or use of pot. The measure also establishes a standard blood test limit for driving under the influence, and Gregoire says the head of the Washington State Patrol has to begin training officers to enforce that portion of the measure.


"He can't wait, he's got to start doing this," Washington's governor said.


Gregoire said she promised to keep the Justice Department fully informed as to the progress the state is making in implementing the new marijuana law.


Colorado's governor and attorney general spoke by phone Friday with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, with no signal whether the U.S. Justice Department would sue to block the marijuana measure.


If Colorado's marijuana ballot measure is not blocked, it would take effect by Jan. 5, the deadline for the governor to add the amendment to the state constitution. The measure allows adults to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, and six marijuana plants, though public use of the drug and driving while intoxicated are prohibited.


Colorado's new law also directs lawmakers to write regulations on how pot can be sold, with commercial sales possible by 2014.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/hasn+made+decision+possible+block+Washington/7549998/story.html#ixzz2CFxD73o6
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#99 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,071 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:27 AM

More likely Consolidated General Revenue.


Exactly! Like I said, health care :P
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#100 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:23 PM

Exactly! Like I said, health care :P


Rofl I thought of posting the same thing.

As for Wet's post above it will be interesting what the feds do. Those on the left can support it without political fall out. But on the right not so much. Well, that is until you start pointing out that they are violating state rights if you look at it as the founding fathers would.

Does the fed really have the money to go to battle with Washington and Colorado on something their own states democratically decided to do or will they let it slide and see what happens.

Interesting times indeed.
  • 0

#101 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:40 PM

The US federal government is still formulating its response to the recent initiatives passed in Washington and Colorado legalizing marijuana.

Washington Governor Chris Christie plans to push ahead unless the feds obtain a court injunction.



Now if only our own Christie would likewise fight for the democratic will of the British Columbian people.


Referendum needed on policing of marijuana in B.C



Vancouver SunNovember 15, 2012






http://www.vancouver...com/7551575.bin


According to a recent survey, 75 per cent of British Columbians said they favour taxation and regulation of marijuana instead of prosecuting users.

Photograph by: Ed Andrieski, The Associated Press, Vancouver Sun


At this point, no one needs to be told that the war on marijuana has been a dismal failure. Or almost no one.
After all, there is abundant evidence from around the world, and from right here in British Columbia, that marijuana prohibition has failed to achieve any of its stated objectives. Indeed, as governments spent trillions - yes, trillions - of dollars prosecuting the war on drugs, marijuana use rates increased, with the potency of the drug increasing and its price decreasing.
And while failing to solve any problems, marijuana prohibition generated entirely new ones.
British Columbians are all too familiar with one of those problems: Gang warfare, as gangs compete for control of the extraordinarily lucrative marijuana market.
The evidence of the failure of marijuana prohibition is therefore abundant and compelling. So compelling, in fact, that an amazing array of individuals and organizations has called for an end to this failed experiment.
Illustrious individuals who support ending the war on marijuana include former B.C. Attorneys General Geoff Plant, Ujjal Dosanjh, Graeme Bow-brick and Colin Gabelmann, and former Vancouver mayors Sam Sullivan, Larry Campbell, Philip Owen and Mike Harcourt, and current mayor Gregor Robertson.
And organizations that have registered their support for ending the war include the Union of BC Municipalities, the Health Officers Council of BC and Perry Kendall, B.C.'s Chief Medical Officer, the Canadian Public Health Association, academics and researchers with Stop the Violence BC, the law enforcement group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the federal Liberal and New Democratic parties, the B.C. New Democratic Party and many newspapers, including The Vancouver Sun.
Perhaps most important of all, the public has got the message: According to a survey conducted at the end of October, 75 per cent of B.C. respondents said they favour taxation and regulation of marijuana instead of prosecuting marijuana users. And only 14 per cent believe possession of marijuana should lead to a criminal record.
You could say, then, that ending marijuana prohibition is a no brainer. And yet, the very organization capable of doing so - the federal Conservative party - remains steadfast in its opposition to ending the war. In fact, the Conservatives favour mandatory prison sentences for non-violent marijuana offences - a move that will further play into the hands of organized crime, as it will scare away mom-and-pop outfits and leave more business for the gangsters.
And B.C. Premier Christy Clark has endorsed the federal Conservatives plans, and yet has never explained how it is she plans to reduce the violence associated with the marijuana trade and marijuana prohibition.
Clearly, then, we can't expect our leaders to exercise leadership on this issue. Hence, much as Americans have been doing for some time - and as Washington state, our closest neighbour, just did last week by ending marijuana prohibition - we must take matters into our hands by holding a provincial referendum on the matter. Although criminal law is a federal matter and therefore beyond the authority of the provinces, provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, including policing priorities. British Columbia can therefore amend its Police Act to direct police away from taking any action against individuals for marijuana possession, while treating underage marijuana possession the way we currently treat underage drinking.

In effect, this would amount to refusing to enforce the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act when it comes to adult possession of marijuana, much as B.C. (and seven other provinces) refused to enforce the federal Firearms Act due to opposition to the Long Gun Registry.
The organization Sensible BC has drafted the Sensible Policing Act, which would amend the Police Act in the aforementioned way, and is calling on the government to pass the act. But it is also hoping for a provincial referendum on the issue, which would be held at the next provincial election in September 2014.
Yet to have a provincial vote on the matter, Sensible BC must get the signed support of 10 per cent of registered voters in every riding. If you care about the violence that has wracked our province and wish to help make B.C. safer, all you have to do is visit, and register at www.sensiblebc.ca.
© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun
  • 0

#102 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

Now that's a referendum worth signing.

Simply not enforcing the law sounds good to me.
  • 0

#103 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:00 PM

Now if only our own Christie would likewise fight for the democratic will of the British Columbian people.


Referendum needed on policing of marijuana in B.C



Vancouver SunNovember 15, 2012






http://www.vancouver...com/7551575.bin


According to a recent survey, 75 per cent of British Columbians said they favour taxation and regulation of marijuana instead of prosecuting users.

Photograph by: Ed Andrieski, The Associated Press, Vancouver Sun


At this point, no one needs to be told that the war on marijuana has been a dismal failure. Or almost no one.
After all, there is abundant evidence from around the world, and from right here in British Columbia, that marijuana prohibition has failed to achieve any of its stated objectives. Indeed, as governments spent trillions - yes, trillions - of dollars prosecuting the war on drugs, marijuana use rates increased, with the potency of the drug increasing and its price decreasing.
And while failing to solve any problems, marijuana prohibition generated entirely new ones.
British Columbians are all too familiar with one of those problems: Gang warfare, as gangs compete for control of the extraordinarily lucrative marijuana market.
The evidence of the failure of marijuana prohibition is therefore abundant and compelling. So compelling, in fact, that an amazing array of individuals and organizations has called for an end to this failed experiment.
Illustrious individuals who support ending the war on marijuana include former B.C. Attorneys General Geoff Plant, Ujjal Dosanjh, Graeme Bow-brick and Colin Gabelmann, and former Vancouver mayors Sam Sullivan, Larry Campbell, Philip Owen and Mike Harcourt, and current mayor Gregor Robertson.
And organizations that have registered their support for ending the war include the Union of BC Municipalities, the Health Officers Council of BC and Perry Kendall, B.C.'s Chief Medical Officer, the Canadian Public Health Association, academics and researchers with Stop the Violence BC, the law enforcement group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the federal Liberal and New Democratic parties, the B.C. New Democratic Party and many newspapers, including The Vancouver Sun.
Perhaps most important of all, the public has got the message: According to a survey conducted at the end of October, 75 per cent of B.C. respondents said they favour taxation and regulation of marijuana instead of prosecuting marijuana users. And only 14 per cent believe possession of marijuana should lead to a criminal record.
You could say, then, that ending marijuana prohibition is a no brainer. And yet, the very organization capable of doing so - the federal Conservative party - remains steadfast in its opposition to ending the war. In fact, the Conservatives favour mandatory prison sentences for non-violent marijuana offences - a move that will further play into the hands of organized crime, as it will scare away mom-and-pop outfits and leave more business for the gangsters.
And B.C. Premier Christy Clark has endorsed the federal Conservatives plans, and yet has never explained how it is she plans to reduce the violence associated with the marijuana trade and marijuana prohibition.
Clearly, then, we can't expect our leaders to exercise leadership on this issue. Hence, much as Americans have been doing for some time - and as Washington state, our closest neighbour, just did last week by ending marijuana prohibition - we must take matters into our hands by holding a provincial referendum on the matter. Although criminal law is a federal matter and therefore beyond the authority of the provinces, provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, including policing priorities. British Columbia can therefore amend its Police Act to direct police away from taking any action against individuals for marijuana possession, while treating underage marijuana possession the way we currently treat underage drinking.

In effect, this would amount to refusing to enforce the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act when it comes to adult possession of marijuana, much as B.C. (and seven other provinces) refused to enforce the federal Firearms Act due to opposition to the Long Gun Registry.
The organization Sensible BC has drafted the Sensible Policing Act, which would amend the Police Act in the aforementioned way, and is calling on the government to pass the act. But it is also hoping for a provincial referendum on the issue, which would be held at the next provincial election in September 2014.
Yet to have a provincial vote on the matter, Sensible BC must get the signed support of 10 per cent of registered voters in every riding. If you care about the violence that has wracked our province and wish to help make B.C. safer, all you have to do is visit, and register at www.sensiblebc.ca.
© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun

The problem is this is a matter of federal, not provincial jurisdiction.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#104 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:03 AM

The problem is this is a matter of federal, not provincial jurisdiction.


Then let the feds pay for the policing, court costs, and jails. Operation "the cheques in the mail" is a highly effective manoevre.....
  • 0

#105 Blame Obama

Blame Obama

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,600 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 07

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:32 PM

So prices are starting to surface estimating $300/ounce in Washington.. which is pretty damn cheap for an ounce, and can only get cheaper as legalised marijuana further legitimises and people who fell for government propaganda slowly realise your brain isn't an egg getting smashed by a frying pan when you take a hit.


300 1oz? that isnt cheap.. maybe 130-180
  • 0

10f3wcl.jpg

sig made by: -Vintage Canuck-

 


#106 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,071 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:44 PM

300 1oz? that isnt cheap.. maybe 130-180


*For BC.

It's a touch riskier and hence costlier to buy in the US especially as they get a lot of product from here there's more mark up.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#107 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:55 PM

Then let the feds pay for the policing, court costs, and jails. Operation "the cheques in the mail" is a highly effective manoevre.....

It does not work that way under our Constitution. The provinces are charged with the following under s. 92 (14) of the Constitution Act 1867:

The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.


  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#108 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,534 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:59 PM

*For BC.

It's a touch riskier and hence costlier to buy in the US especially as they get a lot of product from here there's more mark up.

It depends, if you go to certain districts in the city (SF), or Berkeley, you can get it probably $50-100/oz, with no guarantee of course you're getting quality, but elsewhere you're looking at ridiculously inflated prices. It doesn't seem much cheaper in Ontario either.
  • 0

#109 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,071 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:06 PM

It depends, if you go to certain districts in the city (SF), or Berkeley, you can get it probably $50-100/oz, with no guarantee of course you're getting quality, but elsewhere you're looking at ridiculously inflated prices. It doesn't seem much cheaper in Ontario either.


Sorry, should have qualified that with "good" pot :P
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#110 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,674 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:59 PM

the good thing about the washington law (for the users) is that sellers will be required to test and label their THC content (just like alcohol %) so you'll know the strength and most growers will try to compete on quality. sure there will be discount brands that sell crap quality (just like alcohol), but within each level of THC amounts there will be premium brands, value brands, and low quality brands that sell for cheap.
  • 0

#111 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:43 PM

The government realizes that pot is something people can grow right?

How are they gonna know if the ounce that people are carrying around was grown or bought legally from the government?

Something tells me the government bud will be weak. Just a hunch.

I've smoked govt bud. I find it akin to the old Columbian when I was a teen. Blechhh!
  • 0
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#112 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,989 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:32 AM

OH NO YOU DON'T!


United Nations Moves to Impose International Treaties On States Legalizing Marijuana

The United Nations has declared Colorado and Washington in violation of international treaties following ballot initiatives that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

The President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Raymond Yans, has voiced “grave concern about the outcome of recent referenda in the United States of America that would allow the non-medical use of cannabis by adults in the states of Colorado and Washington, and in some cities in the states of Michigan and Vermont,” according to an INCB press release. The INCB is a quasi-judicial “control organ” for the implementation of the United Nations drug conventions.

Mr. Yans said the referendum in Colorado and Washington state “are in violation of the international drug control treaties, and pose a great threat to public health and the well-being of society far beyond those states.” Yans cited the standard nanny-state reasons for dictating what consenting adult Americans put in their bodies, including mental disorders, and cited the welfare of children as a primary concern of the internationalist organization.

“Legalization of cannabis within these states would send wrong and confusing signals to youth and society in general, giving the false impression that drug abuse might be considered normal and even, most disturbingly, safe. Such a development could result in the expansion of drug abuse, especially among young people, and we must remember that all young people have a right to be protected from drug abuse and drug dependency,” the globalist bureaucrat said.

Yans called for the U.S. federal government to “resolve the contradiction between the federal and state levels in the implementation of that country’s obligations under the drug control conventions” and demanded it “take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties within the entire territory of the United States, in order to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.”

In other words, the United Nations insists the federal government perpetuate the destructive and expensive War on Drugs that has fostered a massive prison-industrial complex and ruined countless lives over the last few decades.

As a consequence of the War on Drugs, the prison population in the United States has quadrupled since 1980, primarily as a direct result of mandatory sentencing for drug crimes. Around half of all inmates in federal prisons are there for drug offenses and more than 45 percent of all drug possession arrests in the U.S. last year were for marijuana, according to the FBI’s annual crime report. The United Nations supports this insanity with its call for the United States to obey international drug treaties.

Marijuana legalization is a classic states’ rights and federalist issue. “States should be allowed to make a lot of these decisions,” Rand Paul said earlier this week when asked about marijuana legalization. “I want things to be decided more at a local basis, with more compassion. I think it would make us as Republicans different.”

“I think, for example, we should tell young people, ‘I’m not in favor of you smoking pot, but if you get caught smoking pot, I don’t want to put you in jail for 20 years,’” Paul said.

Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning and many states are finally realizing the War on Drugs is not only grossly unfair, but an immense waste of law enforcement resources and tax payer money.

The United Nations is attempting to insert itself in decisions made by the states and by doing so is acting to perpetuate the War on Drugs. Americans should not only ignore the United Nations and the INCB Secretariat, but the federal government as well when it comes to decisions made by citizens on the local level.

http://www.infowars....zing-marijuana/



UN Drug Czar Pressing US Feds to Disregard Marijuana Legalization in Co. and Wa.

Apparently a democratic vote to decide what substances people can put in their own bodies isn't enough.

The head of the UN drug watchdog agency is pressing US federal officials to challenge ballot measures in Colorado and Washington that decriminalized marijuana, in blatant disrespect for what the people voted for in those states.

Raymond Yans, who heads the International Narcotics Control Board, said legalization sends “a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad.”

Yans told The Associated Press on Tuesday he hopes US Attorney General Eric Holder “will take all the necessary measures” to ensure that marijuana possession and use remains illegal. Apparently a democratic vote to decide what substances people can put in their own bodies isn’t enough to overcome state violence against non-violence drug users.

Leaders in Latin America have repeatedly voiced support for legalization and decriminalization as a way to cut down on drug war violence, undermine the cartels, and preclude US meddling in the region. But the powers that be in Washington have vehemently battered this down.

Now, after democratic votes for legalization in Washington and Colorado, there may be an opening. Presidents from Mexico, Belize, Honduras and Costa Rica said on Monday that trends toward marijuana legalization in the US would make enforcement of prohibitionist policies in Latin America difficult to abide

“The four called for the Organization of American States to study the impact of the Colorado and Washington votes and said the United Nations’ General Assembly should hold a special session on the prohibition of drugs by 2015 at the latest,”according to the Associated Press.

The drug war justifies all kinds of aggressive US foreign policies in the region, supporting repressive governments and para-militaries, while allowing the prohibitionist policies to deepen the black market in drugs and embolden violent drug gangs.

http://news.antiwar....n-in-co-and-wa/



Don’t legalize pot, UN official urges U.S.

VIENNA, Austria — Don’t let marijuana become legal in Colorado and Washington, the head of the U.N. drug watchdog agency is urging U.S. federal officials.


Raymond Yans wants the federal government to challenge ballot measures in Colorado and Washington that decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 and over.


The vote sends “a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad,” he said.
Yans, who heads the International Narcotics Control Board, hopes Attorney General Eric Holder “will take all the necessary measures” to ensure that marijuana possession and use remains illegal throughout the U.S., he said Tuesday.


Both states are holding off on plans to regulate and tax the drug while waiting to see whether the Justice Department will assert federal authority over drug law.

The INCB has no enforcement ability.

Read more: http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2CspgHArd


Edited by key2thecup, 21 November 2012 - 11:35 AM.

  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!


#113 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,071 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:45 AM

The best the UN can come up with is the same tired, old and inaccurate arguments against marijuana? :blink:

Seriously? Legalizing/decriminalizing it will "expand drug use, especially amongst young people"? Really? Despite that everywhere it has been decriminalized has actually seen a DECREASE in general drug use AND youth drug use?

Why we continue to let people with archaic mindsets tell us how to live is a mystery to me. I know evolution is slow but come on people.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#114 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:49 AM

It does not work that way under our Constitution. The provinces are charged with the following under s. 92 (14) of the Constitution Act 1867:

The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts


I know. But as administrators of justice we can simply do a very bad job prosecuting. So much so that every case gets thrown out before it even gets to court.

After all, the fact that serious crimes like assault are being tossed out of court due to delays is a problem right now. As admins you have to figure out how to make the system flow better. So we simply decide to put the offenses we don't want to enforce at the back of the line by default.

Ergo "the cheques in the mail". If the feds get upset about not prosecuting the law, you say "we are! Look, they are in line to be done. We will get to it as soon as we can."

Easy breasy.
  • 0

#115 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,071 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:51 AM

I know. But as administrators of justice we can simply do a very bad job prosecuting. So much so that every case gets thrown out before it even gets to court.

After all, the fact that serious crimes like assault are being tossed out of court due to delays is a problem right now. As admins you have to figure out how to make the system flow better. So we simply decide to put the offenses we don't want to enforce at the back of the line by default.

Ergo "the cheques in the mail". If the feds get upset about not prosecuting the law, you say "we are! Look, they are in line to be done. We will get to it as soon as we can."

Easy breasy.


Posted Image
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#116 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:12 PM

The best the UN can come up with is the same tired, old and inaccurate arguments against marijuana? :blink:

Seriously? Legalizing/decriminalizing it will "expand drug use, especially amongst young people"? Really? Despite that everywhere it has been decriminalized has actually seen a DECREASE in general drug use AND youth drug use?

Why we continue to let people with archaic mindsets tell us how to live is a mystery to me. I know evolution is slow but come on people.

Remember these provisions about marijuana exist because of intense pressure by the US of A to include them in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and it has been the US of A which has been providing the most funds and resources to the International Narcotics Control Board for the War on Drugs.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#117 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,071 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:23 PM

Remember these provisions about marijuana exist because of intense pressure by the US of A to include them in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and it has been the US of A which has been providing the most funds and resources to the International Narcotics Control Board for the War on Drugs.


And...?

Does that make the comments less ignorant?
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#118 Stefan

Stefan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,404 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:58 PM

I don't understand how legalising marijuana would send the signal to society and youth that drug abuse is ok.
Alcohol is legalised. Does that impose a message that being an alcoholic is good?
  • 0

gallery_9059_470_12899.jpg


(1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.



 

#119 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,989 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:21 PM

I don't understand how legalising marijuana would send the signal to society and youth that drug abuse is ok.
Alcohol is legalised. Does that impose a message that being an alcoholic is good?


Agreed, it doesn't send anything thats a garbage statement. The true reason is they want the profitable "war on drugs" to continue.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!


#120 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:27 PM

And...?

Does that make the comments less ignorant?

There are differing studies. Some of which support the claims being made.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.