Bill C-45: Canada's Legalization, The Drama Revs Up

[Ian Bastage]

...your last sentence is a true shame isn't it!...why do we want to be American and flip flop every time we have a party in power change. I've talked to, I'm sure you have too, people who are not pot people but they still have no issue with its legalization.

Thankfully we ARE quite different than our southern neighbours. Every poll says legalization is what Canada wants & the Libs know that we will hold them accountable when they call the next election if they don't follow through with it. It should hit Parliament next week. We shall see.

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Hi All,

I think C-45 will pass (flaws and all) and we will have to go to the courts to expand our rights/get the penalties declared unconstitutional.

The first volley may be fired in December (I think) when Cannabis Culture et al, try to become interveners in the Gerard Comeau case (he is the N.B. man who transported 14 cases of beer into NB. from Quebec).

Since cannabis became a billion dollar industry everyone wants in. Shutting down a multi-billion dollar legal industry would be near impossible.

Peace.

 

[Ian Bastage]

You are right FeloniousPunk. Stage 1 is to get the new legislation adopted. It will be flawed but we just have to consider it a start.

A few crumbs of news:

• Nova Scotia's online survey suggests that they are going to use the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation for retail distribution & that they will choose an age limit of 19
• The mayor of Victoria BC has said that she sees no reason why the city's current crop of city-licensed dispensaries can't continue as outlets after the Fed law is enacted. She says they will adjust their city regs to conform with provincial & federal policy, but the dispensaries have been following the rules & paying their fees.

 

[Ian Bastage]

The draft for C-46, the C-45 companion bill with driving regulations etc, mirrors the original proposal from April, setting an arbitrary impaired level at 2 nanograms per milliliter of blood. An even more serious hybrid offense kicks in at 5 ng.

Very telling is the analysis that accompanies the draft:

"It should be noted that THC is a more complex molecule than alcohol and the science is unable to provide general guidance to drivers about how much cannabis can be consumed before it is unsafe to drive or before the proposed levels would be exceeded," the draft regulation states. "It is equally challenging to provide general advice as to how long a driver should wait to drive after consuming cannabis. In this context, the safest approach for anyone who chooses to consume cannabis is to not mix their consumption with driving." CBC

In other words, they threw a dart & it landed on 2 ng . . .

There is a serious concern from many that this will leave habitual users (i.e. medical users) in a precarious legal predicament since their baseline level without any impairment might equal or exceed this.

Note: Ron also posted an article in International News on the subject. See:

Canada: Draft Cannabis Regs Don't Say How Much Consumption Is Too Much For Driving

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Hi All,

I can't believe C-46 will survive a court challenge. But that isn't a real surprise. Many of the rules in bills C-45 and C-46 will end up in the courts. It is how the government deals with cannabis, recreational or medical.

I cite Gold Medalist Ross Rebagaliati testing at 17.8 nanograms while winning a gold medal in snow boarding. Seems to me that with him winning a gold medal at that level, it would be hard for the government to say you're too stoned to drive at 2, 5 or more ng. But of course, we have to go to the Supreme Court. Get ready to fight, especially for our medical users.

Peace.

 

[TorturedSoul]

The first volley may be fired in December (I think) when Cannabis Culture et al, try to become interveners in the Gerard Comeau case (he is the N.B. man who transported 14 cases of beer into NB. from Quebec).

If your provinces tax beer as part of their revenue strategy, I wouldn't expect that guy to get off. Unless there's some sort of form that people can fill out and send along with the amount 14 cases of beer would have been taxed had he purchased them in New Brunswick (perhaps along with another form to fill out and send to Quebec for a refund of the tax he already paid them for it).

We have laws like that here in the US, too. No attention is paid to someone who (for example) stops off on the way home from work in Nebraska and buys a little beer, some cigarettes, et cetera before heading on home to where he lives in South Dakota. But above and beyond a certain number of items (which is stated, somewhere), it is treated differently - as an attempt to dodge his state's taxation. It's pretty rare to see individuals get prosecuted if they're just doing it for their own eventual personal use - if I were to zip across the nearest state line and buy five cartons of Kools, for example - but it does happen from time to time. I suppose that this can be looked at as being unfortunate... I'm allowed to buy two cartons and bring them back into my state, why won't you let three slide, lol? But the law is TWO, not three. Making exceptions to such things... Is not wise, IMHO. It defeats one of the reasons for having clearly stated numbers in the first place - to wit, preventing a situation where one person gets nailed and someone who is friendly with the prosecutor (etc.) getting a pass because the maximum amount was a variable.

Unless, of course, your provinces are set up differently than our states, and receive ALL of their tax dollars from the federal government, in which case that would seem to have merely been a case of a guy who shopped around for the best deal (and either drinks way too much or was throwing a big party, lol).

There is a serious concern from many that this will leave habitual users (i.e. medical users) in a precarious legal predicament since their baseline level without any impairment might equal or exceed this.

I think you could safely replace "might" with "WILL" in the above sentence. Even if you discounted the 2ng and spoke only of the 5ng one. I'd guess that, for medicinal users, even the cessation of taking one's meds for 24 hours might not be sufficient to reduce the levels below that.

It's all somewhat arbitrary anyway. It's like most other substances, IMHO. If someone is in serious, long-term pain, and they have been using cannabis to treat it - and have been doing so for any significant length of time... Then the effect of any given amount on them is going to be much less in general than the same amount would be on a sporadic consumer. Opiates and other strong meds are the same way; give someone who has never used them (or only at low levels) the heroic amounts that a stage four cancer victim has to take just to get through the day, and they're liable to end up toes-up.

Cops (and those who are trying to do the cops' thinking for them :icon_roll ) just want a concrete number so they can do a quick test instead of having to perform an evaluation. As far as I'm concerned, if a person's driving is such that it causes them to get pulled over on suspicion of being "chemically altered," they ought to get ticketed and made to walk the rest of the way (at minimum) regardless of whether they've been smoking a little cannabis, had a few too many alcoholic beverages to drink, stumbled upon the world's last remaining supply of Quaaludes and swalled a few an hour before... or is just driving dangerously because they're basically a f*ck-up that should have never been given a driver's license in the first place. It's like, well... To my mind, it doesn't really make any difference if the bullet that kills me was aimed or the person just dropped the pistol and it went off, lol - I'll still be dead.

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Hey TorturedSoul,

The argument about crossing provincial borders goes back to our constitution. Back in the 1930's (?) there was a reinterpretation of our 1867 constitution allowing provinces to restrict inter-provincial trade. The constitution says no barriers to inter-provincial trade. That is what the battle is about.

I believe our courts will overturn the 2ng level, because of the Ross Rebagliati case.

As for the officers pulling over drivers on suspicion, I have a real problem with police ticketing without establishing real impairment. I know both of our countries have problems with targeting of visible minorities. It is the automatic ticketing without proof that concerns me.

That is why I believe our courts will overturn the 2ng level.

Great to have you sharing your thoughts with us.

Peace.

 

[TorturedSoul]

The argument about crossing provincial borders goes back to our constitution. Back in the 1930's (?) there was a reinterpretation of our 1867 constitution allowing provinces to restrict inter-provincial trade. The constitution says no barriers to inter-provincial trade. That is what the battle is about.

Ah. So... in theory, the person should, then, be able to simply write a check to his home province for the amount of tax that it would have collected on the 14 cases of beer had he bought them near his house. Cool.

I believe our courts will overturn the 2ng level, because of the Ross Rebagliati case.

I sure hope so. This is a de facto prohibition for many people, IMHO.

I've been against testing for substances vs. observing what state the person is actually in, for years. But ever since I learned that some testing methods will nail a cannabis consumer weeks later, but the consumer of certain other substances for only a day or three, I've been on a RANT about it.

As for the officers pulling over drivers on suspicion, I have a real problem with police ticketing without establishing real impairment. I know both of our countries have problems with targeting of visible minorities. It is the automatic ticketing without proof that concerns me.

I can understand your thoughts on this one. But to me, if an officer sees a driver unable to maintain control, stay properly within lane boundaries, not be within at least 15% of the general traffic flow speed, stopping at a green light, failing to touch the brake pedal at a stop sign, et cetera... That's proof that the driver shouldn't be behind the wheel. Whether it is because of some kind of impairment (the effects of one or more drugs, due to using a cell phone, upset because great grandmother - or pet squirrel - died, or because they're blind) or otherwise makes no difference to me.

I do not favor watering down laws so that they cannot possibly be used against a minority (or everyone else, either). If there's a problem with one or more LEO unfairly targeting a certain group of people, those LEO shouldn't be LEO.

But then... I've never been in favor of even noticing race. I believe that if a person takes a shower and puts on clean clothes (as and when they are able, of course) before leaving the house each morning, and acts with a modicum of respect towards others, it should make no difference. I don't think employers should be allowed to ask what race the prospective employee is on a job application (and that interviews should be conducted in such a way that they cannot see them, lol). Et cetera. I also don't believe in overcompensating, as it makes ZERO difference to me whether the person being discriminated against is one of the "minorities" or of the "majority." And I think referring to oneself as anything other than a citizen of their country/etc. ought to be discouraged. I don't care if someone's great-great-great-great-grandmother came from Ireland, Ethiopia, China, or Mars. If they are a citizen of my country (US), they're not a Martian-"American," they're a US citizen. Period. Be proud of your personal history, sure - but don't try to make it an official thing. Officially - to ME, at least - it makes no difference, and should not in any official consideration (getting hired, whether or not you get better benefits if you're someone that has given up on yourself and gone on the dole, where you get to live, whether or not you get special consideration when it comes time to pass out cannabis cultivation licenses or to decide who gets to hunt dangerously endangered species, or who gets to use certain substances spiritually... anything).

Great to have you sharing your thoughts with us.

In truth, I should be a silent observer. The closest I come to being a Canadian citizen is that my father got to go fishing up there once before he died. But I'm interested in these things because I feel that, in many ways, y'all have a little more sense than we do, lol. And, being interested, it's difficult to not participate.

 

[Skullman420]

Alberta has released their plan:

• 18 years of age minimum
• Specialty stores only — no liquor, tobacco or pharma etc.
• Stores will be run by the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission but it was not announced whether they will use their own stores or allow privately run stores or some combination.
• Private grows: 4 plants per household — with no height restriction (the Fed bill also will drop the height restriction)

No width restrictions? Guess scrog will now be renamed to "Canada style grow"

 

[Wildmanpete]

Good luck Canadians!

 

[TorturedSoul]

No width restrictions? Guess scrog will now be renamed to "Canada style grow"

I guess Canadians will take a page out of the Australians' book? I once read that the punishments there were related to the number of plants involved, so it was not unheard of to find a 10,000-watt grow room - with one plant in it.

IDK for sure whether or not this was true - but if it was... talk about trees, lol.

 

[Torst]

No width restrictions? Guess scrog will now be renamed to "Canada style grow"

They removed all grow restrictions except, 4 plants per house hold. I can do a heck of a lot with 4 plants! On a 20 plant allowance right now I can easily do that with 7 and still have stuff that has to be destroyed!

 

[bignstrange]

Thanks for putting all this info into one thread folks, super useful. Disappointing the amount of regulation they are trying to slap down

I'm just gunna stay here in BC and keep pretending it's completely legal to do whatever I want lol I really wish they would skip the expensive lengthy process of trying more broken laws and regs and just let us do our thangs.

It's unfortunate there are so many irresponsible users who make it so hard to make a set of guidelines to keep everyone safe, that are fair, but lenient enough for us who know what we are doing.

Either way a step in the right direction in our fight I suppose, I'm sure there we be a lot less heat on us small time growers anyways .

 

[Ian Bastage]

So with nothing happening on the C-45 legislative front, there has been a lot of shuffling in the financial trenches.

• Several LPs have made deals to supply cannabis to EU markets. Among them Cronos (Peace Originals) who will sell to Germany. Aurora & Canopy (Tweed) also have overseas contracts.
• Cannabis Wheaton (who owns a piece of 15 LPs & therefore controls a hefty amt of cannabis) is positioning themselves as the ideal vendor to independents or government agencies. They have signed deals with a pharmacy chain & now a convenience store chain for retailing should the regs allow it.
• Aphria took a big stock hit today (Oct 17) with news that there is a risk of delisting from the TSX exchange due to their US holdings which might be deemed illegal by that freak Sessions in the US DOJ. Aphria’s CEO says he has a Plan B for stockholders. We shall see what happens.

Disclosure: I own both Canopy (Weed) & Aphria (Aph) stock. Just a pittance though 'cause I'm not crazy.

 

[GrEeNdAyZ]

Interesting stuff...thanks for the update.

 

[Skullman420]

Sad to hear about your troubles

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Hi All,

Lately there has been much talk in the media about a cannabis shortage come "legalization" next July. I have been considering how the medicinal market might suffer. I was also considering the export market. I don't think anyone knows where the production levels, or the demand in Canada will be next year. The water is very murky.

Is there a timeline on the new exports? How much is being exported now?

There have been a slew of announcements over new greenhouses, but most of them won't come online until 2019.

The Liberals refuse to enact legislation to protect the medicinal consumer, leaving me to believe the medicinal market may be ignored or vulnerable in the rush to get market share for legalized cannabis. Personally we have made plans to survive such a shortage. I suggest all medicinal users make plans just in case.

Peace.

 

[GrEeNdAyZ]

Great thought Felonious...I figured on a mad rush from rec. users next summer but never formulated a thought of any type of a shortage for those that are reliant for true medical need.

 

[Ian Bastage]

Personally we have made plans to survive such a shortage. I suggest all medicinal users make plans just in case.

Wise words, FP. I too, am going to be ready.

 

[Wildmanpete]

My state is going to legalize soon, so there's concern about shortages here as well.