Four former Vancouver mayors back call for an end to pot prohibition

[Great68]

BTW looks like current mayor Robertson agrees with the former mayors:

https://twitter.com/#!/MayorGregor/s...08426410102785

"
@MayorGregorGregor Robertson

Good to see 4 Vancouver ex-mayors calling for end of cannabis prohibition. I agree, we need to be smart and tax/regulate

13 hours agovia HootSuite"

[drunkrussian]

^lets see him say that BEFORE the election lol
Posted via RS Mobile

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by drunkrussian

^lets see him say that BEFORE the election lol
Posted via RS Mobile

He just did...I can't imagine he's going to be done with this term in the office. Needs to wait for the timing to go provincial. I'd say after Dix, will be Robertson.

Too bad pot prohibition has absolutely nothing to do with city politics, so their unanimous agreement equals bupkiss for the cause.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by Great68

I think the notion that marijuana usage will proliferate everywhere is overstated.

I've said this before, but there's bylaws to deal with Tobacco smoking in public and those same bylaws would apply to marijuana smoke.

Likewise people who don't currently smoke marijuana aren't going to be like "Hey man weed's legal now, lets take it up!" and start becoming regular users.

I don't like the wake and bake stoner types either, and they give guys like me a bad name, but as long as they're not bothering anyone else who am I to tell them what they can't do. Personal preferences aren't good enough justification. I don't like smelly ethnic foods, can I ban that?

There is a slight difference between curry and weed.

I think we'd have the same problem as Amsterdam, minus the brothels. If it was BC only that legalized, we'd be a tourist destination for weed. Some will say fine, more tourist dollars for us, and others like me, would say that I don't want our city to be known for that(more than it already is )

I would say that the first step would be legally licensed cafes. That would ameliorate concerns regarding proliferation everywhere.

And that would have my support. Hell, we have a legally licensed opium den-the only thing missing there is them selling it. At least that would pay for the damned thing.

Actually, the more I think this through as I write..it all makes sense. Cafes-we know where they are, which makes policing an easy sell to conservatives. We can begin to be a little harsher on the use of marijuana in places like parks, multi-family housing(which is my personal issue regarding this) and streets(where I send all our multi-family people to go and smoke it) because we now have a legitimate option for those that wish to use pot.

It doesn't address the manufacture and distribution, because at best you are going to capture 25% of those that smoke, and cafes aren't going to appeal to Great68 who wants to sit back at home, at the end of a long day and smoke a little like I have a beer. So there is still going to be an criminal element. Plus the neo-cons are going to look at those cafes as a breeding ground for leftists to plot a commie takeover. The commies are always plotting a takeover in their eyes.

I guess that could be dealt with in phase 2. Once the cafes are showing that the world isn't coming to a crashing end, then you can phase in licensed growers and distributors. That starts to deal with the criminal element. The part they aren't addressing, is you need to increase the penalties for private grow-ops in concert with promoting the use of licensed ones.

I'm all for shifting demand from something illegal to something else, as opposed to increasing out of date drug laws as a method to curb usage.

Then the final sell to the public, is money saved can be devoted to increasing the amount of help-not jail time! to the true addicts of harsher drugs.

I don't know...consider that a mind fart on the subject. You'd have to really sit down and plan out what a legalized world would look like, and present it to the public.

[TheKingdom2000]

Just curious, is HEMP illegal to grow here?

because isn't it better than cotton? I'm not really sure, but I think i've heard that before.

[wstce92]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

...

I would say that the first step would be legally licensed cafes. That would ameliorate concerns regarding proliferation everywhere.

...

Unfortunately, we don't believe in business owners deciding for themselves if they want smokers or non-smokers as customers or workers deciding for themselves whether they want to work in a smoke or smoke-free environment. So we couldn't have cafes for smoking marijuana like in Amsterdam.

[TheKingdom2000]

Originally Posted by wstce92

Unfortunately, we don't believe in business owners deciding for themselves if they want smokers or non-smokers as customers or workers deciding for themselves whether they want to work in a smoke or smoke-free environment. So we couldn't have cafes for smoking marijuana like in Amsterdam.

I think for something like this to help regulate/police it. They can make an exception to this rule. I mean why would anyone go into a "marijuana smoking cafe" not to smoke?

It's not a regular bar/club/restaurant where the general public can go to.

I'm pro-non smoking in restaurants and clubs. It is a proven risk factor to public health. So I totally agree to non-smoking restaurants. But, for a cafe specifically, i'm sure you could apply for a license and get an exception. This makes the most sense to me.

[skippynixx]

I agree designate an area to smoke it and its all good, im sure alot of famillies do not want to be around it just cause its "legal"

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

There is a slight difference between curry and weed.

I think we'd have the same problem as Amsterdam, minus the brothels. If it was BC only that legalized, we'd be a tourist destination for weed. Some will say fine, more tourist dollars for us, and others like me, would say that I don't want our city to be known for that(more than it already is )

I would say that the first step would be legally licensed cafes. That would ameliorate concerns regarding proliferation everywhere.

And that would have my support. Hell, we have a legally licensed opium den-the only thing missing there is them selling it. At least that would pay for the damned thing.

Actually, the more I think this through as I write..it all makes sense. Cafes-we know where they are, which makes policing an easy sell to conservatives. We can begin to be a little harsher on the use of marijuana in places like parks, multi-family housing(which is my personal issue regarding this) and streets(where I send all our multi-family people to go and smoke it) because we now have a legitimate option for those that wish to use pot.

It doesn't address the manufacture and distribution, because at best you are going to capture 25% of those that smoke, and cafes aren't going to appeal to Great68 who wants to sit back at home, at the end of a long day and smoke a little like I have a beer. So there is still going to be an criminal element. Plus the neo-cons are going to look at those cafes as a breeding ground for leftists to plot a commie takeover. The commies are always plotting a takeover in their eyes.

I guess that could be dealt with in phase 2. Once the cafes are showing that the world isn't coming to a crashing end, then you can phase in licensed growers and distributors. That starts to deal with the criminal element. The part they aren't addressing, is you need to increase the penalties for private grow-ops in concert with promoting the use of licensed ones.

I'm all for shifting demand from something illegal to something else, as opposed to increasing out of date drug laws as a method to curb usage.

Then the final sell to the public, is money saved can be devoted to increasing the amount of help-not jail time! to the true addicts of harsher drugs.

I don't know...consider that a mind fart on the subject. You'd have to really sit down and plan out what a legalized world would look like, and present it to the public.

I don't get why it's any different AT ALL to drugs which are already legal.

It'd be like the government saying you couldn't enjoy that beer in your house, because some people can't control themselves and become alcoholics.

And before we might consider letting you enjoy that beer in your house, we better do studies in which we make drinking beer only legal in pubs and examining the outcomes.... You know that you're not an alcoholic, so why are you being prevented from legally doing something when you're causing no direct harm to others?

I already know from personal experience among all my family and friends that the anti-pot rhetoric is grossly overexaggerated.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by mx703

Just curious, is HEMP illegal to grow here?

Nope you can grow and sell it no problems.

[death_blossom]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Nope you can grow and sell it no problems.

[melloman]

I must've missed this...

BC Mayors Join Growing Call to Legalize Marijuana | StoptheDrugWar.org

Good Guy Gregor jumped onboard..

[nickmak]

Meh let the gang bangers kill each other, it keeps life interesting

[Energy]

Yup, let them kill themselves but preferably without innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.

[epicbeardman]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

I kinda disagree.

He didn't really answer any of the questions except for the monetary gain for the province.

When it came to how to deal with the current dealers going underground, he deflected the question and talked about taxing again. Said the underground was something we could not really regulate or solve.

He compared it to tobacco and liquor, but Squire and Randeen pointed out that it is a lot easier to grow a few pot plants in your closet....its a bit of a different story when it comes to tobacco and alcohol (can't have a tobacco field or a distillery in the back yard).

That is my argument too...I don't think that de-criminalizing it or making it legal is going to solve the overall problem of dealing it. Who is going to go to the store to pick up a pack of gov't issued joints when I can call up my buddy and buy some for cheaper.

I just don't see how it is going to work....I think we will still have the same grow-up busts...the only thing it will do, is drive the price down.

Who said anything about the price of weed rising after legalization/taxation? It costs a few cents to make a joint, the rest of the price is revenue. The tax burden will not shift to consumers at all; the dealers will simply make less money. For instance it costs about .50 cents to make a joint, the going rate is $5. That's 4.50$ profit. The government can take about 3.00$ of it in taxation, and leave the dealers with 1.50$ profit. The price of weed remains the same. But you say, oh what if the dealers shift the price of weed up by 3.50$ (price of the tax), towards the consumer? Simple. Less weed will be sold- weed prices are very elastic. It is not addictive like crack, nor is it a complimentary good, or is it a substitute for any other good: weed is weed. People will simply buy less, the dealers will lower the price, take the hit and the price will stay the same.

As for Barnes' argument: "Oh you cultivate weed so much easier. Unlike alcohol, etc, etc." Legalization will also solve that: the smaller dealers will simply be unable to keep up with the tax hit- it makes no sense for them to stay in business due to the tax. The bigger dealers will win in the end, and the number of grow ops will be reduced. Because weed is being taxed, people will realize for small quantities to be consumed for yourself or sold to other parties, it makes no sense to grow your own. They will buy from the bigger guys who can take the tax hit. This is why you don't see people brewing their own beer if they want a six pack; it costs time, money and technical know how to brew a six pack of beer, when the shittiest of sludge at the local BCL will be cheaper all things considered: remember kids, time = money.

That said the bigger guys will survive, or the smaller guys will band together to create a bigger producer. With a bigger producer, more labor comes into play, the marginal product goes up, weed can be produced more effectively- again forcing the little guys out. In the end, the big guys will start competing against one another like any other firm (tobacco, alcohol, etc), and they will find very efficient, cost-effective ways to mass produce weed (while at the same time adhering to set government standards about quality- which we have NONE of at the moment), in order to win the price war. Consumers win.

There are 17,500 est. grow ops in BC. The industry is a couple billion dollars. The revenue we can make through legalization cannot be overstated. By keeping weed illegal, we are devoting needless man hours from the police to enforce a useless law and allow a burgeoning black market to operate. When people want something regardless of the law , there will be criminals who will provide it. These criminals will use force and violence to win market shares and set monopoly prices.

Do you know how lax the penalties are for growing weed in this province? Most people do not even do time. It is absolutely idiotic to not legalize and tax marijuana from a social and fiscal stand point.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by epicbeardman

Who said anything about the price of weed rising after legalization/taxation? It costs a few cents to make a joint, the rest of the price is revenue. The tax burden will not shift to consumers at all; the dealers will simply make less money. For instance it costs about .50 cents to make a joint, the going rate is $5. That's 4.50$ profit. The government can take about 3.00$ of it in taxation, and leave the dealers with 1.50$ profit. The price of weed remains the same. But you say, oh what if the dealers shift the price of weed up by 3.50$ (price of the tax), towards the consumer? Simple. Less weed will be sold- weed prices are very elastic. It is not addictive like crack, nor is it a complimentary good, or is it a substitute for any other good: weed is weed. People will simply buy less, the dealers will lower the price, take the hit and the price will stay the same.

As for Barnes' argument: "Oh you cultivate weed so much easier. Unlike alcohol, etc, etc." Legalization will also solve that: the smaller dealers will simply be unable to keep up with the tax hit- it makes no sense for them to stay in business due to the tax. The bigger dealers will win in the end, and the number of grow ops will be reduced. Because weed is being taxed, people will realize for small quantities to be consumed for yourself or sold to other parties, it makes no sense to grow your own. They will buy from the bigger guys who can take the tax hit. This is why you don't see people brewing their own beer if they want a six pack; it costs time, money and technical know how to brew a six pack of beer, when the shittiest of sludge at the local BCL will be cheaper all things considered: remember kids, time = money.

That said the bigger guys will survive, or the smaller guys will band together to create a bigger producer. With a bigger producer, more labor comes into play, the marginal product goes up, weed can be produced more effectively- again forcing the little guys out. In the end, the big guys will start competing against one another like any other firm (tobacco, alcohol, etc), and they will find very efficient, cost-effective ways to mass produce weed (while at the same time adhering to set government standards about quality- which we have NONE of at the moment), in order to win the price war. Consumers win.

There are 17,500 est. grow ops in BC. The industry is a couple billion dollars. The revenue we can make through legalization cannot be overstated. By keeping weed illegal, we are devoting needless man hours from the police to enforce a useless law and allow a burgeoning black market to operate. When people want something regardless of the law , there will be criminals who will provide it. These criminals will use force and violence to win market shares and set monopoly prices.

Do you know how lax the penalties are for growing weed in this province? Most people do not even do time. It is absolutely idiotic to not legalize and tax marijuana from a social and fiscal stand point.

Yeah, but if there are high taxes in place, there will always be an incentive to cut out the middle men and go straight to the source. I can always grow weed in my closet, but its hard to run a still or grow tobacco.

Therefore, you'll have gov't approved weed and the good stuff competing in the market place.

As you said, there are 17,000 grow shows in BC. They aren't going to stop over night.

And legalizing weed but keeping the source as destroyed rental houses is not going to cut it.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Yeah, but if there are high taxes in place, there will always be an incentive to cut out the middle men and go straight to the source. I can always grow weed in my closet, but its hard to run a still or grow tobacco.

Therefore, you'll have gov't approved weed and the good stuff competing in the market place.

As you said, there are 17,000 grow shows in BC. They aren't going to stop over night.

And legalizing weed but keeping the source as destroyed rental houses is not going to cut it.

It's not that challenging to produce liquor at home; I have a friend who avidly brews beer at home as a hobby, and I can't imagine building a still would be that difficult. Growing tobacco, I can speak from personal experience in saying it's also not very difficult. There's no underground tobacco farms or moonshine industry subverting the government regulated sources, however. When presented with a legal option to acquire something, I think the majority of people will opt for it for a number of reasons. That's even true for mary j, just look of the success of dispensaries.

I definitely agree with you on your final point. Legalizing weed but not establishing a legal production network isn't a viable option. The grow op industry hurts landlords, tenants and British Columbians as a whole so it should be crushed. I've been looking at moving, I visited too potential places recently, one landlord required a monthly inspection and the other required one every second month, out of fear of grows ops.

I also agree with you that British Columbia becoming a Mary J tourist destination would be an issue. Although it would attract a certain group of tourists, they aren't necessarily the ones we want visiting, and it may very well drive away other tourists.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

It's not that challenging to produce liquor at home; I have a friend who avidly brews beer at home as a hobby, and I can't imagine building a still would be that difficult. Growing tobacco, I can speak from personal experience in saying it's also not very difficult. There's no underground tobacco farms or moonshine industry subverting the government regulated sources, however. When presented with a legal option to acquire something, I think the majority of people will opt for it for a number of reasons. That's even true for mary j, just look of the success of dispensaries.

I definitely agree with you on your final point. Legalizing weed but not establishing a legal production network isn't a viable option. The grow op industry hurts landlords, tenants and British Columbians as a whole so it should be crushed. I've been looking at moving, I visited too potential places recently, one landlord required a monthly inspection and the other required one every second month, out of fear of grows ops.

I also agree with you that British Columbia becoming a Mary J tourist destination would be an issue. Although it would attract a certain group of tourists, they aren't necessarily the ones we want visiting, and it may very well drive away other tourists.

Yeah, I get it.

I guess my problem is there is already an underground network of supply in place.

Yeah, you CAN brew beer, and probably get production up to the point where you could make SOME money. Same with tobacco.

I mean, you can pretty much make anything you want at home. With enough R+D I could probably manage to make a viable nuclear bomb, if I could get my hands on some yellowcake...

With a legal distribution, it needs to be equal in quality, cheaper and it needs to be both of these things from day one.

I just don't know that you are going to have 17,000 guys suddenly abandon their operations.

PLUS...you have to deal with the underground nature of pot. Suddenly, you have gone from illegitimate supply to accepted social process. I think the illicit nature of pot is a part of the appeal.

[GGnoRE]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

With enough R+D I could probably manage to make a viable nuclear bomb, if I could get my hands on some yellowcake...

Kim Jeong Eun from N.Korea would like to hire you

[epicbeardman]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Yeah, but if there are high taxes in place, there will always be an incentive to cut out the middle men and go straight to the source. I can always grow weed in my closet, but its hard to run a still or grow tobacco.

Therefore, you'll have gov't approved weed and the good stuff competing in the market place.

As you said, there are 17,000 grow shows in BC. They aren't going to stop over night.

And legalizing weed but keeping the source as destroyed rental houses is not going to cut it.

No one's taxing the buyer. The plan is to legalize it then tax the producers; the tax is not shifted to the buyer at all- weed prices remain the same. I gave a huge reason for this in my original post. And no one said anything about things happening over night.

If you want a perfect case study of legalization of a banned and highly valuable substance look no further than the prohibition the States enacted. During the height of the prohibition, there were literally speakeasy's around every corner, with tons of people cooking their own alcohol. After prohibition that number PLUMMETED and the number of speakeasy completely disappeared. So did the number of violent crimes to post-prohibition as opposed to during prohibition. Organized crime groups also went out of business. The U.S subsequently also made a KILLING off the taxes they had on liquor, and there were quality controls introduced. The home brewer got killed off. The firms survived and made great products. do you know anyone that brews their own booze? Or brings over a tub of home cooked moonshine to a BYOB party? Not saying there aren't a few out there who do it for shits and giggles, but there is zero competition between home made brews and the big market brewers. You have more varieties, produced cheaply, much more quickly by the big firms. That is what will happen to pot once it gets legalized.

Like I said, the big guys will survive the tax, find ways to mass produce cheap weed, put the little guys out of business and people will just buy their weed instead of growing it. It would be akin to trying to brew your own beer as opposed to taking a 2 minute trip to the BCL. Is it possible? Sure. Is it worth it? Not really. Of course there will be the odd few who will have their own grow op, but with legalization, there will come a host of laws that compliment taxation policies, especially laws pertaining to grow ops. For the very, very, very few that will choose to grow their own, I am sure they have to get into some sort of rental agreement with the landlord and be liable to being sued or charged with trying to evade taxation, or whatever else law the government wants to pull out of their ass should they damage the property or whatever. Who knows.