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

[Ian Bastage]

"Conservative health critic Marilyn Gladu has put forward several motions to amend Bill C-45 as it reaches report stage in the House. One of the motions includes an amendment that would remove the ability for Canadians 18 years and older to grow up to four cannabis plants in their residence." Lift News

Well, I guess we all know who not to vote for in the next election. A good thing that there is a Lib majority.

Ian

PS Sorry for getting political but really?

 

[TorturedSoul]

"Conservative health critic Marilyn Gladu has put forward several motions to amend Bill C-45 as it reaches report stage in the House. One of the motions includes an amendment that would remove the ability for Canadians 18 years and older to grow up to four cannabis plants in their residence."

I do hope that they don't manage to get that attached to the Bill. From the standpoint of the government/politicians, of course, it makes perfect sense - if you cannot legally grow your own cannabis (and wish to stay within the letter of the law, which I assume at least one person on the planet does ), then you'll have to buy all your cannabis at the "store." And you'll be paying tax on it. So, in that respect, it'd definitely be a win.

But not a win for the people who actually consume cannabis. If I was a citizen of your fine country, I might consider suggesting that they leave that restriction out of the Bill (/potential future law) and, instead, add a reasonable tax to cannabis growing supplies. In other words, let people grow their own and - assuming that greed in government still exists :rolleyes3 - net a few dollars for each and every indoor grow light, et cetera that is sold. As a consumer, I'd grumble a wee bit over such a tax. <SHRUGS> But, hey, it's a fact of life that ALL governments require money in order to operate. (Admittedly, the worldwide average requirement probably works out to something like 35% to 50% of what all the various governments actually collect, when you factor in wastage due to the bureaucratic monster, corruption, and plain old incompetence, but still.)

And, in light of the above, at the end of the day I'd very much prefer paying tax on my grow supplies than on things such as food and medicine. If I had to, I could skimp on growing supplies for the month (this is one of those hypothetical scenarios where I can actually afford to purchase growing supplies in the first place, lol) - but not buying food or a prescription for a month would constitute an undue hardship. It's that whole "needs vs. wants" thing. Taxing people's needs, well, that's one sure way to get your operating money I suppose. But that way is fraught with issues, both potential and concrete (chief among them, poor/elderly being forced to do without things that they really NEED, and a large percentage of your population base hating on the government).

Upon grumbling about having to pay a reasonable - but NOT ruinous - tax on my grow supplies, if the person behind the cash register then said, "Well, they were going to prohibit personal grows altogether so they could collect tax directly on every lid that a person consumes, but then they decided to go ahead and allow folks to grow their own and just tax the lights/nutrients/etc.," then... I'd probably stop grumbling .

Sorry for getting political but really?

Hey, the way I see it, this is a VERY relevant topic for discussion on a cannabis-related forum - and when discussing such a topic, there's no way to keep politics out of it and still have a useful dialogue. And it appears that everyone is being remarkably civil (especially for a "political" discussion, lol), and that no members have gotten virtual bloody noses in the process. Which means that, IMHO, this thread lives up to the standards we try to maintain around here. And it is, after all, a topic that is probably very important to all of our Canadian members (and worthy of much more than just passing interest from your neighbors to the South!).

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Hi All,

I think the biggest failure of this Liberal Government is their failure to get rid of the "first past the post" electoral system we currently have. They campaigned to get rid of this system, but dropped the ball when people wanted proportional representation and true democracy. It would have ended 40+% (but less than 50%) of the popular vote from having a majority Government to do as they wanted. It would have meant that the lunatic fringe like Gladu would no longer have a voice ( I recognize the liberals and conservatives could form a minority government, but that seems unlikely).

I also recognize that I am in the minority of voters that recognize the importance of proportional representation to create a true democracy. A democracy where you vote your conscience, not one where you have to vote strategically to prevent the big bad boogie man from getting a majority government (with 43% of the popular vote). Under Proportional Representation, I'm sure cannabis would have been legalized after the Le Dain commission report in the 1970s.

And with proportional representation, C-45 and C-46 wouldn't be Prohibition 2.0, they would be real legalization bills that would prevent the cops from continuing to persecute visible minorities.

Peace.

 

[Ian Bastage]

Tortured Soul

Thanks for your continued interest. I agree that this does also matter south of the border. The way we legalize & the successes/failures will set the tone for future states & countries as the world churns toward legalization over the next decade (or more).

In our parliamentary system, the current government is a majority government so they can ram through any bill they want. The Senate does have oversight but it is expected that they will huff & puff & pass it as well. The clock is ticking for all since an end date was set. Since the polls show canadians favor it, no one will really want to stand in the way at this point. I hope.

As FP said previously, we have to view this as a start.

Ian

 

[TorturedSoul]

people wanted proportional representation

Workable, IMHO. In theory .

and true democracy.

I honestly don't see THAT working, even in theory. Not at this time, I mean. With the technology available today, it would be workable, for the most part, to vastly pare down the "representative republic" part of what we call democracy - by setting up a system and needed infrastructure that would allow every adult to cast their vote for (or against) every issue that came up, and to do so (for the most part, for most people) from within their own homes instead of having to visit a polling station many, many times per year. Securing such a thing might be... an effort. But I don't see that as the issue.

To me, the real issue with a "100% democracy" is that, well... People CBA to even do necessary research on the candidates for a major election, FFS, instead just voting for the one who looks the best, manages to sound "the toughest," or maybe for the candidate who states they are for or against some - ONE - issue that the individual voter is interested in. Not everyone is like that, of course, but it's got to be... if not a majority (and I do have my suspicions :icon_roll ), at least a significant minority of the people. Err... Of the ones that can even be bothered to vote in the first place, I mean.

Yeah... I cannot see 98% of the population doing research on everything that the average government has to decide on a daily basis. And that, IMHO, is absolutely necessary for a democracy (as opposed to a representative republic, which - obviously - manages to muddle through most of the time, regardless of the level (or lack thereof) of the population's education, motivation, et cetera).

Oh, this has been completely off-topic, hasn't it? Err... Well... Uh... Hmm...

Well, I love cannabis, and I think it should be every bit as legal (and far more so) than - for example - cigarettes and alcohol. And...
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Germany next?

Merkel May Agree To Legalize Marijuana In Germany Under Coalition Deal | Marijuana Moment

Peace.

 

[TorturedSoul]

I agree that this does also matter south of the border. The way we legalize & the successes/failures will set the tone for future states & countries as the world churns toward legalization over the next decade (or more).

Yes, those are my thoughts. And - I'm still somewhat amazed by this, BtW - it's not a question of one of your provinces considering this (which would, I suppose, be comparable to one of our states doing so), it's actually your federal government considering the issue for the entire country. Here... People here have always said that Social Security has always been the elephant in the room, the "third rail," if you will. But I see the question of cannabis being much the same. It does (occasionally) get spoken about - by the candidates. But there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot happening on that account when the candidate eventually gets elected. IDK, relatively minor aspects of it... But I have yet to see evidence of any amount of serious discussion/consideration of the entire cannabis issue here at a federal level. Just the occasional moving of the lever forward (or backward, as the case may be) a little bit. Shoot... At this point, I might even be satisfied if that actually happens but they go batsh!t crazy and get all draconian on us. After all, lofl, that box has already been opened, even if only just a crack - and attempting to slam it shut now could cause a crisis that forced (some form of) legalization. Even completely discounting all the "medicinal-use" states and seeing that only eight of our 50 states have legalized it for general usage... That still equates to something like at least one in five US citizens being legally allowed (on the state level) to buy, grow, or buy AND grow cannabis and consume it. Imagine what would happen if our fearless leaders decided to switch to a 100% enforcement zero-tolerance policy nationwide, lol. I thought there were going to be riots over the question of who got to use which public bathroom, LMFAO. I kind of figure that the average (US) citizen doesn't really care what sign they stick on the public bathroom door, as long as the thing is reasonably clean and the line is short enough to allow them access before... leakage happens :rolleyes3 . But tell MILLIONS of people who are able to walk into a store RIGHT NOW and buy cannabis (or walk into their closet and not fear "the man" following them in and forcibly trading their plants for an arrest)? Better make sure all the fire trucks are in good working order before trying to do that, methinks...

Also, I think there is some degree of... justice to be had from the concept of one of our neighbors (as in, physically bordering our country) taking the lead and legalizing cannabis on a national level. It's bound to cause all kinds of issues, lol. And I believe it strongly enough to consider it a fact at this point that cannabis is currently illegal in much of the world as a direct result of the decades of US governmental influence/interference on the world stage. In other words, if y'all legalize and it forces us to end up applying a little common sense to things, well, it sort of serves us right.

 

[Ian Bastage]

Imagine what would happen if our fearless leaders decided to switch to a 100% enforcement zero-tolerance policy nationwide, lol.

Ron posted this: U.S. Beer Giant's Investment In Canadian Cannabis May Kill Jeff Sessions' Buzz in International News. It might be big business that ultimately stops the little gnome rather than the consumers. And Constellation is an early adopter. Others will start to jump on the train as well. While investment in US marijuana firms is shaky, Canada's cannabis movers will be very appealing to establish brands & market presence. If the behemoth US corporations want this revenue stream, they will get it.

Ian

 

[Ian Bastage]

Germany next?

Merkel May Agree To Legalize Marijuana In Germany Under Coalition Deal | Marijuana Moment

Peace.

Interesting. Europe needs one of the big 3 - UK, Germany, France - to legalize to open the floodgates a trickle. I don't see the UK or France doing it any time soon but if Germany starts . . .

Ian

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Hi All,

I have seen some activism in the UK that is catching the attention of the press. I think it is only a small uprising but I believe it has some traction. I think the changes in American law (state) carry more weight politically in the international community than the legal reality of cannabis being federally illegal at the borders and inside the United States.

Peace.

Interesting. Europe needs one of the big 3 - UK, Germany, France - to legalize to open the floodgates a trickle. I don't see the UK or France doing it any time soon but if Germany starts . . .

Ian

 

[Ian Bastage]

Ontario . . .

Bill 174, Cannabis, Smoke-Free Ontario and Road Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 had its 1st reading in the Ontario Legislature. That link will take you to it if you like reading proposed laws.

It contains what we already knew plus:

"new penalties for people or businesses that are convicted of illegally selling or distributing cannabis, including fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and/or jail of up to two years less a day. Corporations would face fines of up to $1 million for the same offence.

The law would also allow police to immediately close premises they suspect are being used for the illegal sale or distribution of marijuana." Global News

Ian

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Thanks Ian. I was going to post this. Too slow!

Draconian.

Doesn't sound like legalization.

More like organized crime without motorcycles.

Hope the Supreme Court has blocked out time for the lawsuits to come...

Peace.

 

[Ian Bastage]

I did a speed read of the law. They also can go after landlords who rent to unauthorized retailers/growers. This & the penalties above are the real teeth to close Ontario dispensaries. If a dispensary can't rent a store . . .

The police can also search a vehicle if they suspect cannabis use or illegal transport. You can transport cannabis but like liquor, it must be stored and not available to the occupants.

Ian

 

[TorturedSoul]

That link will take you to it if you like reading proposed laws.

Doesn't everyone? Otherwise, well... We'd sort of deserve everything that we get (or failed to get), wouldn't we?

"new penalties for people or businesses that are convicted of illegally selling or distributing cannabis

I suppose that makes sense. You're sort of looking at tossing out all the existing laws/penalties about cannabis, right? And "legal" does not necessarily equate with "completely unregulated free-for-all," lol - so it seems logical to expect a new set of laws (and penalties for breaking same).

Look, we all know that in the "harm rankings," the drugs contained within - and collectively known as - cannabis are far closer to a glass of water than, for example, morphine. But, regardless, cannabis isn't water. And, for that matter, I'd guess that even those whose business is selling water (be it that which is sold in expensive little bottles or that which you can have by the gallon by simply opening a faucet valve) have to operate under a set of regulations, and that there are penalties for failing to do so.

IMHO - in other words, if it was ME - instead of getting angry about the fact that there are going to be any regulations, I'd concede the fact that there ought to be at least a minimal set of common-sense ones - just like there should be with any substance that is intended to be consumed by homo sapiens. And then I'd start trying to actively participate in the process of determining what form said regulations will take, the substance of them, et cetera.

I figure there are some politicians who are in favor of the thing (who may or may not actually have their facts straight), some who are opposed to it (ditto), and a third group - who might even constitute a majority :rolleyes3 - who don't really give two shiny sh!ts one way or the other and who will treat this entire process as just another job that they have to do, but probably not have to do well.

Yeah... They really DO need your constructive input. And politicians are (in some ways ) just like everyone else. Their eyes probably glaze over by the time the 142nd person confronts them in order to helpfully educate them on the subject of cannabis, lol. By that point, it's undoubtedly much more difficult to change a person's belief. Shouting, "You're wrong - and I'm going to tell you why!" probably won't do it . And that's assuming that the politician in question isn't being unduly (IOW, at all) influenced by some kind of lobbyist or other entity. You can sometimes get one of them to do the right thing by publicly calling them out and shaming them. However, this strategy tends to make an enemy for life. Voters seem to have very short memories - but politicians have infinite (albeit rather selective) ones.

So... In my rambling way, the above are my thoughts on why some level of regulation is a good thing, and why it is (again, IMHO) important to become part of that process RIGHT NOW instead of waiting until after the smoke clears and trying to fix things.

I actually hadn't planned on typing any of it, lol. What caused me to click on the reply button was this:

including fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and/or jail of up to two years less a day. Corporations would face fines of up to $1 million for the same offence.

This seems... wrong. Unless someone has made a determination that the average corporation can only be reasonably expected to generate four times the income that the average individual could. Me, I don't honestly have a clue - but I suspect that the corporations' potential for profit is well above 4x the individuals'. I expect that they're like corporations in any other industry. A buddy of mine worked in the fracking industry until his hands got useless. I visited him (he had a camper in the woods near his job site, as it was far from his home), so he let me wait in their office trailer for his replacement to decide to wake up and come to work :icon_roll. While there, he mentioned that he'd gotten a look at some memo or other about the company's operating expenses. What stood out to him was a line in the memo something like "expected fines.......$1M to $3M per day." Yep, just another operating expense for Big Money. So the concept of hitting a corporation with a fine that's four times what you or I would get? That's messed up.

Another thing: Individuals can go to jail for two years for violations. What about the principals of the corporations? It's been my experience that, if you own a business and one of your employees screws up... He/she may have been the one that stepped on the old crank - but it's YOUR fault, and YOU are responsible. The same should apply to corporations (FFS!). Saying, "But you can't put a corporation in jail!" is just a bullsh!t cop-out, IMHO, because you cannot put Fred's Grocery and Gas in jail, either - but you sure can lock up ol' Fred. So what if a corporation is "owned" by tens, hundreds, or thousands of people (via the stock they hold)? Lock 'em all up, lol. I've heard all kinds of reasons why this would be a disaster. But the ONE real reason is one that I never hear in discussions about corporate responsibility - because it'd tend to have the effect of forcing people to have some thought about something over and above simple greed when deciding which corporations to buy into / fund. Would you buy DowDuPont stock if it meant you could end up being prosecuted for any runaway genetic disasters the company causes? Or responsible for the result of another Bhopal, India type disaster that might see you get prosecuted for 550,000+ injuries and 3,800 to 16,000 deaths? I'm guessing... That you'd think twice about it. And if you did still invest in the stock, I'd also guess that you'd demand some sort of... safety in the workplace and all that. Buy Apple stock, get prosecuted for child abuse, lol. Et cetera. IDK how many problems this would solve - but it'd be several.

The law would also allow police to immediately close premises they suspect are being used for the illegal sale or distribution of marijuana.

That's pretty much boilerplate standard, isn't it? Any business can be closed if it is involved in criminal activity? I'd want language in place to define "suspected" as no less than "we just arrested someone." Otherwise, someone complains - and we all know that a person facing prosecution for their own issue would never consider giving a false statement in return for leniency, right?[/SARCASM] - and that would be enough to get the business shut down because, hey, LEO is now officially suspicious. That's obviously not the same thing as having enough evidence to arrest a suspect for something or other, and it's definitely not the same thing as having enough evidence to get an indictment by a grand jury (if you have those up there). And, since more than one prosecutor has been of the opinion that grand juries would indict a ham sandwich if they were asked to, lofl...

It's not... Y'all have a golden opportunity in your laps right now. Please, please, PLEASE don't screw it up. Try real hard to go at it objectively, to pull 100% of the emotions out of it. I know, lol, easier said than done. Especially when the other side won't be bothering. Don't insult the intelligence of the politicians - even when that intelligence is, itself, an insult to our species. Smile, even (it'll only hurt for a little while ). Find a way to make them see the benefit - to them - in doing the right thing. I'd never suggest lying, of course, but if there isn't the benefit that the politician is looking for - but he/she thinks there is - do not be overly concerned with correcting their incorrect thoughts, lmao. Reality will do that, eventually. Find a way to convince them to do the right thing - and to end up thinking that it was their idea in the first place. <SHRUGS> F*ck "credit," let whoever wishes take the credit for it. It won't tarnish the thing.

I'm just rambling. Possibly even ranting....

 

[TorturedSoul]

They also can go after landlords who rent to unauthorized retailers/growers.

Needs to include some sort of "good faith" defense, with the onus on LEO to prove otherwise (IOW, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing needs must apply!). I assume that one gets some kind of paperwork when one becomes a legal grower? Landlord requires a copy, adds it to the same file that his/her copy of the lease is stored in. If cannabis-growing entity is still only just a potential one, landlord requires said paperwork (and all the permissions it gives) to be obtained within X days of signing the lease or it becomes invalid.

Just simple things like that, and BOOM problem solved, lol. Next.

The police can also search a vehicle if they suspect cannabis use or illegal transport. You can transport cannabis but like liquor, it must be stored and not available to the occupants.

I don't really have an issue with that. I won't go into the whole "but cannabis is safer than liquor thing," because that varies from individual to individual (err... whether I'd feel safe riding with one who I'd just smoked a gram or two of The Finest Kind with, I mean :rolleyes3 ) - and, realistically, it could be said (regardless of whether or not it is actually true) that trying to "police" each possible situation individually could be an... an undue drain on resources, I guess?

We have "open container" laws here in regards to alcohol. In other words, I do NOT need to lock a case of beer in the trunk - I can have it in the seat beside me and use it as an armrest as I drive down the road. I just can't have an open can. I feel that this sort of thing is good enough for cannabis, too. "Not available to the occupants" is unrealistic, anyway. I'd have access to every storage area in my vehicle(, assuming I owned one). Strike that one due to its overly broad language that's too open to interpretation and - in its current form - could be construed to mean a locked box that no one in the vehicle has a key to!

More like organized crime without motorcycles.

OC has motorcycles now?!? Where was I at when they passed that memo out, lol? They must be traditionalists around here; they still seem to be sticking with full-sized sedans. I'm assuming it's because, you know, trunks. How are you supposed to get a body to the pig farm on the back of a motorcycle?

You folks have to deal with the Yakuza up there or something? We don't, here. Hillbillies will put up with a bunch of old farts with accents (and their employees/associates) - after all, they are about the only ones that pay more than minimum wage, lofl - but draw the line at hoods on rice rockets :rolleyes3. And old coots who've lived all their lives having to provide food for their families by shooting it, and often with single-shot rifles and very limited amounts of ammunition, can generally chase away (<COUGH>et cetera<COUGH) pretty much anyone when you can manage to get said hillbillies to agree that the thing needs doing.

DISCLAIMER: Or so I have been told.

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Hey TS,

Unfortunately our style of democracy does not respond well to calling your representative. It can be effective with a minority government or on issues not yet decided.

Our style of government puts most of the power in the hands of the Premier (provincially, the Prime Minister federally). These are the people who sign your papers for re-election. They have the hammer. Rarely do we see free votes or members breaking party ranks.

The provincial Liberals have a majority government and control the house. The subtle difference between government run vs private sector dispensaries arguments would be lost on local politicians. Not only that, they see $$$$, and don't want to share.

There has been some talk of boycotting the Governments dispensaries. I'm not sure that can be organized, and more importantly, does anyone really care? Recreational users will use the government dispensaries or, if not to their liking, call their local dealer or internet MOM (mail order marijuana).

The people who will be really hurt by this proposed law will be the medical cannabis users. It is these users who will suffer most from lack of variety. It is their voices that will add weight to any legal challenges.

I expect that this is going to the courts. In the end I expect the cannabis activists will win. Here in Ontario we have small wineries, craft brewers and liquor distillers that sell out of their own retail shops. Some deep pocketed grower is just going to have to buy a building and set up a shop for their craft cannabis and wait for the cops. Then get an injunction and fight to the Supreme Court. I've got $50.00 to help with legal costs when the time comes. It is where we have had success.

Peace.

 

[Ian Bastage]

One thing that did come through is they carefully differentiate between recreational use & medical use. Medical uses are subject to Federal law & are exempt from some of the Ontario statutes but subject to provisions of the Clean Air Act. Med users can take meds wherever you can smoke cigarettes - in hotel rooms, long-term care etc as long as they allow & have designated ventilated rooms etc. Rec users are not specified so probably prohibited.

TS — some answers . . .

Re: vehicle transport — the wording:

that is packed in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle or boat​

Re: landlords :

It is a defense to a charge under subsection (1) that the defendant took reasonable measures to prevent the activity​

Re: corporate punishment

(3) A corporation that is convicted for contravening section 6 or 13 is liable,

(a) on a first conviction in respect of the section, a fine of at least $25,000 and not more than $1,000,000; and
(b) on a subsequent conviction in respect of the section, a fine of at least $10,000 and not more than $500,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues.​

And the First Nations may do their own deals with the gov't re sale, production & use on reserves.

Ian

 

[Ian Bastage]

The LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) who will be the only legal source for recreational cannabis in Ontario has launched a new website:

LCBO CANNABIS UPDATES

Ian

 

[Ian Bastage]

Oh & I forgot one very important point for medical users:

Where a police officer is satisfied that a person driving or having the care, charge or control of a motor vehicle is legally authorized to use a drug or drugs for medical purposes, and has that drug or drugs in his or her body, as indicated by approved drug screening equipment, the officer shall not request that the driver surrender his or her driver’s licence under subsection (1).

Ian

 

[FeloniousPunk]

Hi All,

Ian, I'm not sure what this means.

So "surrender licence" means "roadside suspension"?

As opposed to not having to show drivers licence to a police officer when riding your bicycle. Is this law still current? I know you had to be honest about who you were, but did not have to produce your drivers licence.

So does this mean that the 5 nanograms/ml limit does not apply to licenced cannabis patients? And if so, how can the courts allow medical users this privilege and punish recreational users under the same circumstances? More court challenges?

If I have this right, then they are writing laws they know will be struck down just to ease the political fallout. I know I shouldn't be surprised...

Cowards.

Peace.