[Canada] War on Drugs won by Drugs

[Xisiqomelir]

Really admiring Trudeau for this one, no matter his other little foibles.

Canada becomes second country to legalise recreational marijuana

The first recreational cannabis to be legally bought in Canada was purchased at midnight on Wednesday (02:30 GMT) on the eastern island of Newfoundland amid queues of hundreds of people.

Canada has become the second country after Uruguay to legalise possession and use of recreational cannabis.

Medical marijuana has been legal in the country since 2001.

But concerns remain, including about the readiness for police forces to tackle drug impaired driving.

Information has been sent to 15m households about the new laws and there are public awareness campaigns.

Ian Power, from the town of St John's began queuing at 20:00 local time so he could "make history". Newfoundland is half an hour ahead of the next province to the west.

"It's been my dream to be the first person to buy the first legal gram of cannabis in Canada, and here I finally am," he said.

Canadian provinces and municipalities have been preparing for months for the end of cannabis prohibition. They are responsible for setting out where cannabis can be bought and consumed.

This has created a patchwork of more or less restrictive legislation across the country.

How ready is Canada for legal cannabis?

There remain unanswered questions on some key issues around how legal cannabis will work in Canada.

A number of analysts are predicting a shortage of recreational marijuana in the first year of legalisation as production and licensing continues to ramp up to meet demand.

And the marketplace itself is still in its infancy.

Ontario, Canada's most populous province, will only begin opening retail stores next spring, though residents will be able to order cannabis online.

British Columbia, one of the provinces with the highest rates of cannabis use, will only have one legal store open on Wednesday.

Until retail locations are more widely available, some unlicensed cannabis retailers, which have flourished in the years since the law was first proposed, may stay open.

It is unclear if police will crack down on them immediately, or if they will turn a blind eye.

What's at stake?

Jessica Murphy, BBC News, Vancouver

Legal pot has been an inescapable topic for months in Canada, as governments and companies prepared in earnest for 17 October.

That day is finally here, and Canadians will learn just how much - or how little - the new framework will change the country. But this is not just a domestic affair.

With global trends shifting away from a strict prohibition of cannabis, the world will be watching this national experiment in drug liberalisation.

A measure of success - whether legalisation will be a win for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ahead of the 2019 federal election - will depend on whether it meets his stated goals: restricting access of the drug to youth - who are among the heaviest users in Canada - reducing the burden of cannabis laws on the justice system, and undercutting the illicit market for the drug.

And if the outcomes are positive, other countries might just be more willing to follow suit.
Why is Canada legalising cannabis?

Legalisation fulfils a 2015 campaign promise by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the leader of the governing Liberal Party.

The prime minister has argued that Canada's nearly century-old laws criminalising use of the drug have been ineffective, given that Canadians are still among the world's heaviest users.

He said the new law is designed to keep drugs out of the hands of minors and profits out of the hands of criminals.

The federal government also predicts it will raise $400m a year in tax revenues on the sale of cannabis.

Cannabis possession first became a crime in Canada in 1923 but medical use has been legal since 2001.
What is the situation elsewhere?

Canada follows in the footsteps of Uruguay, which became the first country in the world to legalise the sale of cannabis for recreational use in 2013. A number of US states have also voted to end prohibition.

Medical marijuana is also gaining ground in many European countries. Portugal and the Netherlands have decriminalised the drug.



South Africa's highest court legalised the use of cannabis by adults in private places in September, though the sale of the drug remains a crime.

In April, Zimbabwe became the second country in Africa, after Lesotho, to legalise the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Nine US states have legalised recreational marijuana use while many more allow its use on medical grounds.
What are the new rules around cannabis?

Adults will be able buy cannabis oil, seeds and plants and dried cannabis from licensed producers and retailers and to possess up to 30 grams (one ounce) of dried cannabis in public, or its equivalent.

Edibles, or cannabis-infused foods, will not be immediately available for purchase but will be within a year of the bill coming into force. The delay is meant to give the government time to set out regulations specific to those products.

It will be illegal to possess more than 30 grams in public, grow more than four plants per household and to buy from an unlicensed dealer.

Penalties for some infraction will be severe. Someone caught selling the drug to a minor could be jailed for up to 14 years.

Some critics say the penalties are too harsh and not proportional to similar laws like those around selling alcohol to minors.

What are the concerns?

On Monday, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published an editorial calling legalisation "a national, uncontrolled experiment in which the profits of cannabis producers and tax revenues are squarely pitched against the health of Canadians".

There are also still some legal wrinkles to be worked out.

Canada has brought in new drug impaired driving offences, but doubts remain about the reliability of screening technology and the potential for drugged driving cases to clog up the courts.

Federal statistics indicate that about half of all cannabis users do not believe their driving is impaired after taking marijuana.

On Wednesday, government officials announced they will present legislation intended to fast-track pardon applications of people who have been convicted of possession under 30g (one ounce). There are currently some 500,000 Canadians with existing criminal records for possession.

The change in national drug policy has also created headaches with the US, where the drug remains federally a controlled substance.

On Tuesday, the US Customs Border Protection Agency said border guards will have "broad latitude" to determine who is admissible to the country.

Border guards may ask Canadians if they smoke cannabis, and deny them entry if they believe they intend to do so in the US.

Canada has also been rolling out signs at all airports and border crossings to warn travellers that crossing international borders with the drug remains illegal.

I think we can see the tide turning on this destructive and pointless waste all over the G20 in the next 10 years or so.

Editorial note: I think the 4-plant/household limit is both arbitrary and silly, but you could do worse to maximise your yields than RDWC hydro.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not perfect, but its a step in the right direction. Good on Trudeau for following through on this promise.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I'm sure the restrictions will be relaxed as time passes. At worst, the 4 plants per household restriction can probably be bypassed if one is willing to pay for a license to grow commercially, especially given the initial shortage of legal product.

[Xisiqomelir]

"Where's the rest of the dope Ricky?!"

Canada Is Already Experiencing Cannabis Shortages

Canadians loved their legal weed so much that many stores ran out of stock of the first day of legalized cannabis and no one is sure when the shortages will end.


Across the country, smokers of all pedigrees (including one brilliant dude named Tim) either logged onto a website or waited for hours outside a store to get their hands on some legal weed. We all knew the demand was going to be great and anticipating this many stores, both of the online and brick and mortar variety, stocked up on everything from bongs to pre-rolled doinks.

Much more at link.

Hey, you fellas think some 42-year-old first timer will timidly blaze up, enjoy his high, then wonder why exactly the government was lying so hard about jah herb seed? Think that will get them curious as to what else they are being declaimed at on high that they ought to question critically?

[ray245]

Is there going to be an age restriction on weed?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I believe so, as one of the stated goals of legalization to regulate use amongst minors.

[ray245]

I believe so, as one of the stated goals of legalization to regulate use amongst minors.

Yeah, I just hope the people cheering about the legalisation of weed understand that it's not something you want to give to minors. How old is the age restriction? Because didn't weed have a harmful effect on brain development before people reach 25?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Prolly 16. Don't quote me, though.

[ray245]

Prolly 16. Don't quote me, though.

16 is a little too young if that's the case. I would prefer 21 at the very least.

[Batman]

Alcohol is also not all that helpful to brain development, and guess what? In Germany, people can buy beer at age 16, everything else at age 18, and it's STILL a massively saner place than the US

[Jub]

It's the same as alcohol so 18 in some provinces and 19 everywhere else. It's going to need ID just like alcohol and you'd better believe that the authorities will be monitoring things closely for the time being to make sure laws are enforced.

How hard is it to google this and find the government webpage that goes into all the details about legalization in Canada?

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/healt ... ns.html#a2

[ray245]

Alcohol is also not all that helpful to brain development, and guess what? In Germany, people can buy beer at age 16, everything else at age 18, and it's STILL a massively saner place than the US

So? I think 16 is not the ideal age to grant them the right to buy alcohol either. Whether Germany is a saner place than the US is besides the point.

[Jub]

So? I think 16 is not the ideal age to grant them the right to buy alcohol either. Whether Germany is a saner place than the US is besides the point.

Then you'd be horrified with the French who may, at the parent's discretion, serve their children wine with meals. I'm of the opinion that as long as they're not getting drunk a beer or two at sixteen, or even younger, isn't going to hurt anybody. It's the binge drinking at parties that causes most of the harm and that doesn't happen in legal establishments or with parental supervision.

I'd fully support a service aimed at teens that allows them to drink lower strength alcohol in a safe place with strict limits on how much they can have in a sitting and with information about addiction and counseling posted at the doors. That seems the sensible way to let kids try alcohol, which those that want to will anyway, while not just allowing them to walk into a store and buy a large quantity of hard liquor.

[Batman]

You know what the legal 'buying' or 'drinking' age for alcohol is here? WE DON'T HAVE ONE. Yet curiously enough, Germany has far less problems with it

[Jub]

You know what the legal 'buying' or 'drinking' age for alcohol is here? WE DON'T HAVE ONE. Yet curiously enough, Germany has far less problems with it

Yeah, not making something into forbidden fruit tends to make it less interesting to kids.

[ray245]

Then you'd be horrified with the French who may, at the parent's discretion, serve their children wine with meals. I'm of the opinion that as long as they're not getting drunk a beer or two at sixteen, or even younger, isn't going to hurt anybody. It's the binge drinking at parties that causes most of the harm and that doesn't happen in legal establishments or with parental supervision.

I'd fully support a service aimed at teens that allows them to drink lower strength alcohol in a safe place with strict limits on how much they can have in a sitting and with information about addiction and counseling posted at the doors. That seems the sensible way to let kids try alcohol, which those that want to will anyway, while not just allowing them to walk into a store and buy a large quantity of hard liquor.

I'm well aware of that tradition in France and in Italy. I don't think drinking wine socially at dinner is the same as smoking weed, mainly smoking weed because it's not exactly something you want to be doing around children in the first place.

You know what the legal 'buying' or 'drinking' age for alcohol is here? WE DON'T HAVE ONE. Yet curiously enough, Germany has far less problems with it

You have a legal age for cigarette. I will argue that smoking weed is more similar to smoking tobacco (even if it is not as harmful as tobacco) than drinking alcohol. With alcohol, people who don't enjoy it don't have to taste it. With tobacco or marijuana, people who don't enjoy the smell of them will end up smelling them if they are in close proximity enough.

Yeah, not making something into forbidden fruit tends to make it less interesting to kids.

Kids will try it anyway. The main problem with marijuana for adolescent is its extensive use. And given that studies has shown that marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, an age limit would help to limit adolescent access to marijuana.

[Jub]

I'm well aware of that tradition in France and in Italy. I don't think drinking wine socially at dinner is the same as smoking weed, mainly smoking weed because it's not exactly something you want to be doing around children in the first place.

Should we also keep kids away from campfires for fear of them inhaling that smoke? Weed doesn't have the same issues as tobacco so I don't see why it's especially harmful to children.

You have a legal age for cigarette. I will argue that smoking weed is more similar to smoking tobacco (even if it is not as harmful as tobacco) than drinking alcohol. With alcohol, people who don't enjoy it don't have to taste it. With tobacco or marijuana, people who don't enjoy the smell of them will end up smelling them if they are in close proximity enough.

So smoke in the designated areas or in your own home. Here in Canada we have a 3-meter minimum distance from doors, air intakes, bus stops, etc. where you can't smoke.

Kids will try it anyway. The main problem with marijuana for adolescent is its extensive use. And given that studies has shown that marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, an age limit would help to limit adolescent access to marijuana.

Except that even when it was illegal they got a hold of it... Plus Canada does have an age limit of 18 or 19 anyway, have you not been keeping up with the thread?

My age limit point was also regarding alcohol, I never mentioned removing age limits for weed anywhere in this thread. Though honestly, my thoughts are the same with it as with alcohol in that there should be safe spaces for teens to try it out and any stigma should be stripped away and replaced with facts and access to support for those that develop issues with substances.

[Tribble]

Education and media representation certainly play a big role too. Tobacco use has been generally falling for decades in developed countries largely because the general populace is now well aware of the dangers, tobacco companies are no longer allowed to advertise, and it's no longer considered "cool" by the media or general populace. If you are a smoker now, people tend to view you as an idiot. IMO that kind of sentiment probably helps discourage young people from trying it more than prohibitions and regulations do.

[ray245]

Should we also keep kids away from campfires for fear of them inhaling that smoke? Weed doesn't have the same issues as tobacco so I don't see why it's especially harmful to children.

Do people have campfires on a regular basis on par with how often French and Italian families have wine? Regular drinking of wine is not the same as regular smoking of weed.

So smoke in the designated areas or in your own home. Here in Canada we have a 3-meter minimum distance from doors, air intakes, bus stops, etc. where you can't smoke.

My point was that kids, especially adolescent are prone to end up in social situation where their peers will want to smoke weed. You can chose to avoid alcohol at a party. You will breath in second-hand smoke ( even if it is not enough to get you high). As someone with breathing problems, it can be difficult to even avoid second-hand cigarette smoke due to social circumstances as an teenager/young adult.

Except that even when it was illegal they got a hold of it... Plus Canada does have an age limit of 18 or 19 anyway, have you not been keeping up with the thread?

There is still an accessibility cost. I would rather make it more difficult for adolescent to get their hands on weed en bulk, as we want kids to avoid excessive usage of weed.

Plus Canada does have an age limit of 18 or 19 anyway, have you not been keeping up with the thread?
My age limit point was also regarding alcohol, I never mentioned removing age limits for weed anywhere in this thread. Though honestly, my thoughts are the same with it as with alcohol in that there should be safe spaces for teens to try it out and any stigma should be stripped away and replaced with facts and access to support for those that develop issues with substances.

I was responding to Batman's point about Germany having no age restriction on alcohol. I am in favour of the legalisation or decriminalisation of weed as long as there are sufficient measures that explains to people how it is more harmful to adolescent than adults. A no-age limit policy as suggested by Batman might not make it evidently clear to teenagers and young adults that they would experience more issues if they start smoking weed at a younger age than at an older age.

The problem with alcohol consumption is that many teenagers do not realise it would cause more issues to them than to adults. And from what I gather about binge-drinking among youths in Germany, there are many who do not realise the harmful effects of drinking excessively at a young age.

I'm against the seemingly laissez-faire approach that Batman seems to be advocating. This does not mean I am advocating something similar to the over-excessive American system either. From what I gather about excessive (and risky) drinking among youths in Germany, while they are not as bad as some European countries, they are still above the European mean.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article ... 81/2467426

Education and media representation certainly play a big role too. Tobacco use has been generally falling for decades in developed countries largely because the general populace is now well aware of the dangers, tobacco companies are no longer allowed to advertise, and it's no longer considered "cool" by the media or general populace. If you are a smoker now, people tend to view you as an idiot. IMO that kind of sentiment probably helps discourage young people from trying it more than prohibitions and regulations do.

One does not preclude the other imo. You can inform and educate people while imposing some restrictions on underaged kids from having easy access to weed, alcohol, tobacco and etc. Why people take up smoking is often due to social pressure among peers. I think people tend to downplay the role of peer-pressure in encouraging people to drink and smoke.

[Tribble]

One does not preclude the other imo.

You can inform and educate people while imposing some restrictions on underaged kids from having easy access to weed, alcohol, tobacco and etc.

Let's just say that in Toronto weed is easier for youth to access marijuana than alcohol and tobacco despite being illegal until this week; hopefully making it above board will make things better.

Why people take up smoking is often due to social pressure among peers. I think people tend to downplay the role of peer-pressure in encouraging people to drink and smoke.

Though that's true, I would say that social/peer pressure can change over time, at least in my experience. I really don't recall there being any peer pressure with regards to tobacco growing up - who wants to smoke something that everyone knows will kill you? Plus, virtually everyone knew at least one person who died due to a tobacco-related disease, so its effects were real and personal. Naturally there were a few who went ahead and did it anyways, but it wasn't like it was treated as normal or "cool" behavior.

In comparison there was quite a bit of peer-pressure with marijuana and alcohol, and both are almost considered a right of passage of sorts. I don't know anyone (myself included) who haven't tried both of them at least once. Why the difference? IMO education / the media play a significant role in shaping perceptions of something which in turn can influence peer-pressure, particularly in youth. If the media depicts drinking and/or smoking pot to be cool, is it any surprise that youth would want to try it, even if they are underage? If they see their parents do it, doesn't that make it seem ok for them? Peer-pressure doesn't usually form in a vacuum IMO.

[Jub]

Do people have campfires on a regular basis on par with how often French and Italian families have wine? Regular drinking of wine is not the same as regular smoking of weed.

When did I ever compare the two?

For the record, I'm not saying that we should be blowing bong hits into infants faces or anything like that, but I doubt that smoking in a reasonably ventilated area near kids will do all that much harm.

My point was that kids, especially adolescent are prone to end up in social situation where their peers will want to smoke weed. You can chose to avoid alcohol at a party. You will breath in second-hand smoke ( even if it is not enough to get you high). As someone with breathing problems, it can be difficult to even avoid second-hand cigarette smoke due to social circumstances as an teenager/young adult.

You can't smoke in any bar or restaurant here and lots of people will ask you to smoke outside and enforce that at all but the largest of parties. If you have an issue with smoke ask your friends to smoke away from you and if they aren't assholes they will. I don't know how it is at your end of the world, but you won't usually see a house just filled with smoke these days.

There is still an accessibility cost. I would rather make it more difficult for adolescent to get their hands on weed en bulk, as we want kids to avoid excessive usage of weed.

Did you miss the part where when I advocated for the idea of making weed and alcohol available to kids in a situation where the potency of the offerings would be limited and their consumption monitored? I swear you're not reading this thread and especially my posts very closely.

I am in favour of the legalisation or decriminalisation of weed as long as there are sufficient measures that explains to people how it is more harmful to adolescent than adults. A no-age limit policy as suggested by Batman might not make it evidently clear to teenagers and young adults that they would experience more issues if they start smoking weed at a younger age than at an older age.

The problem with alcohol consumption is that many teenagers do not realise it would cause more issues to them than to adults. And from what I gather about binge-drinking among youths in Germany, there are many who do not realise the harmful effects of drinking excessively at a young age.

I'm against the seemingly laissez-faire approach that Batman seems to be advocating. This does not mean I am advocating something similar to the over-excessive American system either. From what I gather about excessive (and risky) drinking among youths in Germany, while they are not as bad as some European countries, they are still above the European mean.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article ... 81/2467426

Most nations already do teach that in schools and even going back to the early 2000's when I was a student they had presentations about the harmful effects of drugs and how it's worse when you're still young. The fact is that young people are more likely to overindulge in all sorts of things be they freely and easily acquired or illegal and less easy to acquire. I know people that drank weekly in high school and others that never touched a drop both in a place with a legal drinking age of 19.

As for your study, it's self-reported which is one major strike against it. The second strike is that it's a single sampling with no follow-up. A person who self-reported having five drinks once in the past month might never do so again or might do so less frequently than once per month. These are counted the same in terms of risky drinkers as a person who consistently has five drinks per setting month after month. They do address this in their conclusion, but the study doesn't seem nearly rigerous enough for the type of conclusion you're trying to draw from it.

One does not preclude the other imo. You can inform and educate people while imposing some restrictions on underaged kids from having easy access to weed, alcohol, tobacco and etc. Why people take up smoking is often due to social pressure among peers. I think people tend to downplay the role of peer-pressure in encouraging people to drink and smoke.

When has a tighter restriction ever worked for otherwise easy to obtain things like cigarettes and alcohol? Smoking laws have changed but only with regards to advertising and rates have dropped drastically. Age restrictions and tighter or looser compliance checks don't seem to have made a difference while controlling advertising and changing education strategies seems to have made a big difference. I don't doubt that there would be a slight uptick in usage rates among teens if we removed age restrictions entirely but I don't think it would be the disaster you make it out to be any more than legalization (or heavy decriminalization) of harder drugs have increased rates of use among adults in nations where that has been done.

The Portugal model of decriminalization for all drugs with an increased focus on treatment and harm reduction seems like the best policy with the greatest results. Yet people like you still insist on silly draconian laws that have already proven to be near worthless while ignoring the benefits that changing strategies would bring.

[Tribble]

One does not preclude the other imo. You can inform and educate people while imposing some restrictions on underaged kids from having easy access to weed, alcohol, tobacco and etc. Why people take up smoking is often due to social pressure among peers. I think people tend to downplay the role of peer-pressure in encouraging people to drink and smoke.

When has a tighter restriction ever worked for otherwise easy to obtain things like cigarettes and alcohol? Smoking laws have changed but only with regards to advertising and rates have dropped drastically. Age restrictions and tighter or looser compliance checks don't seem to have made a difference while controlling advertising and changing education strategies seems to have made a big difference. I don't doubt that there would be a slight uptick in usage rates among teens if we removed age restrictions entirely but I don't think it would be the disaster you make it out to be any more than legalization (or heavy decriminalization) of harder drugs have increased rates of use among adults in nations where that has been done.

The Portugal model of decriminalization for all drugs with an increased focus on treatment and harm reduction seems like the best policy with the greatest results. Yet people like you still insist on silly draconian laws that have already proven to be near worthless while ignoring the benefits that changing strategies would bring.

Misquote, as the above post was from ray245, not me lol.

[Jub]

Yeah my bad, I kept the wrong set of quote tags.

I'm outside of the edit window too so I can't fix it.

[ray245]

Yeah my bad, I kept the wrong set of quote tags.

I'm outside of the edit window too so I can't fix it.

Since when did I argue against decriminalisation? Unless you think simply having a min age is trying to criminalise the use of weed.

Bear in mind that I'm saying users should not be criminalised for using it because they're underage. Simply require have an ID check as proof they are of a certain age when they want to buy it in stores.

[Jub]

Since when did I argue against decriminalisation? Unless you think simply having a min age is trying to criminalise the use of weed.

Bear in mind that I'm saying users should not be criminalised for using it because they're underage. Simply require have an ID check as proof they are of a certain age when they want to buy it in stores.

Currently, Canada has such. I'd argue that such is unnecessary in light of what actually has an effect on usage rates and have proposed special establishments for teens where they can have low strength alcohol and marijuana, but no tobacco due to the addiction risk, in a place where they'll be monitored. Those at risk can then be approached with offers of help. The whole idea is one of harm reduction not aimed at selling kids shots of the hard stuff or pounds of the dankest bud.