[Vansterdam]

vansterdams finest ;)

Four former Vancouver mayors back call for an end to pot prohibition (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Four+former+Vancouver+mayors+back+call+prohibition/5756241/story.html)

Four former Vancouver mayors of varying political stripes have endorsed a coalition calling for an end to pot prohibition in Canada, which they blame for rampant gang violence.

Larry Campbell, Mike Harcourt, Sam Sullivan and Philip Owen all signed an open letter to politicians in B.C. Wednesday claiming a change in the law will reduce gang slayings on public streets.

The former mayors support the position of the Stop the Violence B.C. coalition, which recently released a survey showing most B.C. residents favoured an end to the current marijuana laws.

The letter says “marijuana prohibition is — without question — a failed policy.”

“It is creating violent, gang-related crime in our communities and fear among our citizens, and adding financial costs for all levels of government at a time when we can least afford them. Politicians cannot ignore the status quo any longer, and must develop and deliver alternative marijuana policies that avoid the social and criminal harms that stem directly from cannabis prohibition,” the letter says.

The letter was sent to MPs, MLAs and city councillors, and is designed to drive debate on changing marijuana laws.

“It is unconscionable, unacceptable and unreasonable that the criminal element in B.C. is allowed to grow and thrive due to inaction on the part of the politicians,” said Sullivan, who served 12 years as a city councillor before being elected mayor of Vancouver in 2005. “Politicians must play a key role in the development of new policies that can really provide safer, stronger communities.”

But a police expert on organized crime said Wednesday that gang violence is extremely complex and not directly linked to any one product marketed by crime groups.

“It’s not our place to argue whether marijuana is good for you or bad for you, or that it should or shouldn’t be legalized … But we do have expertise in gangs and organized crime,” said Sgt. Bill Whalen, of the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit.

“What we know is, gang violence has many components to it, most importantly, organized crime is profit-motivated and that is a huge contributor to gang violence. Secondly, the commodities change. In recent years, our investigations have shown that violence is tied to money, and more prevalent commodities like cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy.”

He said legalizing marijuana “won’t solve the problem of gang violence.”

The Stop the Violence coalition said that a September poll showed B.C. residents don’t have faith that politicians can design policies to reduce criminal, health and social harms stemming from the illegal marijuana trade.

The Angus Reid online survey of 800 people showed that only 32 per cent of British Columbians trust municipal politicians to develop effective marijuana policy. Trust in federal and provincial politicians was even lower – at 28 per cent and 27 per cent respectively.

Harcourt, who was both mayor and B.C. premier, said politicians should be working on “developing an alternative to marijuana prohibition.”

“British Columbians clearly say that prohibition does not work and new policies have the potential to generate widespread public support,” he said.

Owen agreed, saying: “It’s time politicians listened to their constituents and woke up to the possible benefits of a new legalization, regulation and taxation regime.”

Campbell, who is now a senator, challenged politicians to “prove the public wrong.”

“Politicians have tremendous access to information, expertise and the levers of power, and must use all of the tools at their disposal to fight gang violence by implementing rational marijuana policies,” Campbell said.

The poll was commissioned by the new coalition, made up of academic, legal, law enforcement and health experts.

“These poll results reinforce the fact that British Columbians are way ahead of those they have elected in recognizing the destructive outcomes from marijuana prohibition,” said Dr. Evan Wood, a coalition member and director of the Urban Health Research Initiative at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

“It’s time politicians of all stripes consider the gang violence and criminal activity resulting from marijuana prohibition, and enact policies that reflect the desire of British Columbians for change.”

kbolan@vancouversun.com



Read more: Four former Vancouver mayors back call for an end to pot prohibition (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Four+former+Vancouver+mayors+back+call+prohibition/5756241/story.html#ixzz1edTWwMUD)

[melloman]

Saw this on Global @ 6pm last night.. they asked Sam Sullivan why he didn't try to get this through when he was mayor.. his reply:

"Because I wanted to be re-elected" :fuckthatshit: hahahhahaha

[FN-2199]

So, of you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[drunkrussian]

im not against making weed legal, in fact it can convert millions of dirty dollars into clean ones.

however legalizing weed putting an end to the gang problem? please. sure weed is big business, but so is exstacy, guns, heroin, illegal gambling brothels etc. unless they plan to legalize all that and more there will be no end to any gang problems. in fact forcing the gangs to focus on their other products and diversify may cause MORE violence as they now see themselves battling for new turf that they had no interest in in the past.

like i said there are many reasons why pot shud be legal that are god ones. the one theyre using however is complete short term thinking with no real insight into the complexities of the situation. i guess theyre vancouver politicians after all...
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[bengy]

Fuckin cowards.

[MindBomber]

Saw this on Global @ 6pm last night.. they asked Sam Sullivan why he didn't try to get this through when he was mayor.. his reply:

"Because I wanted to be re-elected" :fuckthatshit: hahahhahaha

Gregor is vocally pro-legalization and he was just re-elected...

[melloman]

im not against making weed legal, in fact it can convert millions of dirty dollars into clean ones.

however legalizing weed putting an end to the gang problem? please. sure weed is big business, but so is exstacy, guns, heroin, illegal gambling brothels etc.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Very true. Yet legalizing weed will give police a better oppurtunity to focus on other crimes. Yes that's a very vague statement.. but it's true. If the police took all the efforts from trying to stop people from production/distribution/consumption of marijuana, I can see a lot of good coming from it. It's again, a big business for the government to put their hands into, and tax marijuana just like anything else.

We could see some good coming from it. That's no doubt.

[toyobaru]

Legallizing pot will have so many reprecautions to it. For one the government will probably and most likely impose a tax on it like alcohol and tobacco, thus taking more money away from gangs. However it would help our economy (ie: paying off the olympics). Secondly make pot legal would mean a huge chunk of revenue from the gangs being taken away and they will be upset because now they have to fill that taken away revenue with something else. That being said gangs will most likely have to push their other products to sell on the streets being exposed to the younger generation (exstacy, meth, etc).

[murd0c]

Legallizing pot will have so many reprecautions to it. For one the government will probably and most likely impose a tax on it like alcohol and tobacco, thus taking more money away from gangs. However it would help our economy (ie: paying off the olympics). Secondly make pot legal would mean a huge chunk of revenue from the gangs being taken away and they will be upset because now they have to fill that taken away revenue with something else. That being said gangs will most likely have to push their other products to sell on the streets being exposed to the younger generation (exstacy, meth, etc).

You have to think about tourism as well. So many Americans and tourists will come up here to spend money so they can smoke the best and not have to worry about what could happen.

[urrh]

A little while ago I read an article about Portugal decriminalizing marijuana and it seemed to work out well for them so far. That's not to say Vancouver is like cities Portugal but until a bill is passed and data has been analyzed, all of this is just conjecture. I'd like to see a bill passed for it and we'll see how it goes.

found the article
Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html)

[drunkrussian]

Very true. Yet legalizing weed will give police a better oppurtunity to focus on other crimes. Yes that's a very vague statement.. but it's true. If the police took all the efforts from trying to stop people from production/distribution/consumption of marijuana, I can see a lot of good coming from it. It's again, a big business for the government to put their hands into, and tax marijuana just like anything else.

We could see some good coming from it. That's no doubt.
tax benefits i agree

but i think the pot dealers will start dealing something else. Or involved in other crimes. Or will start fueds to take territory away from others who deal somethign else. Not to mention the robberies of legal pot places that are to follow. I think police will have MORE to do!

whether there will be more crim or less crime i don't know. I just know that if you subtract the crime from dealing weed you're getting rid of and then add on all the spillover crimes that result from legalizing, you're not looking at a very big decrease or increase in crime...it'll stay more or less the same, will just shift in its nature. So in that regard i think the mayors' stance is bullshit. It's also the reason i think it should be legalized potentially - not too much more crime, with a lot more profits that could go towards helping take kids off the street

[HondaGuy]

Watched it on global last night and this doctor was being interviewed by squire and another woman and he handled each question lke a baws convincing that legalizing would be a good idea while taxing the users. Hahaha...

Although its frowned upon by many that a drug shouldnt be legalized, there are some valid points for legalizing too. Seesaw effect...

[no_clue]

as long as the United States oppose pot,
BC will never legalize it

[achiam]

This is going to sound nuts, but they need to have draconian penalties for drug traffickers. I think pot should be legalized, but the fuckers who make/bring in REALLY harmful shit like crack, heroin, etc. should be sentenced to 30+ years to life, or like Singapore, mandatory death penalty carried out within a year.
If the gangs started getting busted and their gangster buddies began getting executed left and right within months of being busted, I'm CERTAIN our drug problem would be drastically reduced.

EDIT: Even better than the death penalty would be like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where you get a whole arm chopped off so everyone knows you were a drug dealer for life.

[threezero]

^ yea problem is most ppl that get caught are usually drug mule.

Gang problem = social problem

Punishing individuals with harsh sentence really does nothing. Even if you do manage to get the top guy and put him down another will ALWAYS take his place. What usually happen with harsh trafficking laws is the drug mule gets caught and the poor guy who is probably only doing this to survive gets sentence to death and the gang will find another Unfourtnate person to take his place.

If you don't get at the grassroot problem of why ppl join gangs in the first place there will always be a gang problem no matter how harsh u make the punishment to be.

Jail only deter good honest folks who may never end up there in the first place. Go tell a institutionalize thug he will get 15 year for doing the shit he does and he will laugh in face, been there done that.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[RRxtar]

meanwhile amsterdam is tightening up their loose marijuana laws. go figure

[threezero]

^ thought they are doing that Becuz of tourist going there to blaze and than make a mess.

Actually speaks alot about other countries prohibition.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[dinosaur]

Watched it on global last night and this doctor was being interviewed by squire and another woman and he handled each question lke a baws convincing that legalizing would be a good idea while taxing the users. Hahaha...

Although its frowned upon by many that a drug shouldnt be legalized, there are some valid points for legalizing too. Seesaw effect...

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.

[TheKingdom2000]

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.

I see what you're saying.
But, most people wouldn't buy from a dealer anymore. I know I wouldn't.
Why would I when I can go into a legal marijuana shop and get grade A stuff of every type. I've always wanted to try different strains and variations of marijuana, but I just get the same old shit (albeit good shit) from my buddy.

And yeah, the price would be driven down hopefully. And I know that the marijuana shop will be regulated etc. So there will be standards etc.

It just doesn't make sense that a drug that is proven to be less dangerous to our body than tobacco and alcohol is illegal. What I want to see are reports from Amsterdam. Was marijuana always legal there? How did they deal with it. And what are the after maths of it? How have they not turned into a druggy infested shit hole.

[dinosaur]

I see what you're saying.
But, most people wouldn't buy from a dealer anymore. I know I wouldn't.
Why would I when I can go into a legal marijuana shop and get grade A stuff of every type. I've always wanted to try different strains and variations of marijuana, but I just get the same old shit (albeit good shit) from my buddy.

And yeah, the price would be driven down hopefully. And I know that the marijuana shop will be regulated etc. So there will be standards etc.

It just doesn't make sense that a drug that is proven to be less dangerous to our body than tobacco and alcohol is illegal. What I want to see are reports from Amsterdam. Was marijuana always legal there? How did they deal with it. And what are the after maths of it? How have they not turned into a druggy infested shit hole.

Yeah, I totally see that side. There are a lot of normal, everyday people who do not want to buy from the drug dealer or be involved in that scene. There would (maybe) be access to different stains and variations like you said, everything would be legit...you would know what you were buying and not have the fear that there may been something added (I was once given a joint laced with coke). I totally dig the logic.

My fear, is that it is so easy to grow/manufacture, this will not really solve the problem like people are promoting. Our drug problems won't go away, the province won't be rolling in the millions, and I don't think our street will be that much safer.

I'm not saying that everyday normal people are thinking this way, but it seems to be the way that a lot of advocates for the de-criminalization movement are advertising it as such.

As I have stated in other threads on the same subject...I am not in favor of de-criminalizing it as I have to deal with it in my job. I was a HUGE pothead in my late teens/early 20s and I have touched the stuff in years. I hate the smell, I hate dealing with it, the the whole pot culture annoys me -I'm not talking about the normal dude who sparks one after a long day of work or at a party not unlike having a nice cold beer, I'm talking the wake-and-bake stoner hippies.

I have also mentioned in other thread regarding the law of smoking it in public and maximum intoxication levels for driving, etc. I see a lot of problems with that whole aspect as well. Do we adapt the smoking tobacco by-law to pot as well? How to we deal with road-side testing?

I get that heath-wise it is not as harmful as tobacco and really no different than alcohol, and I really don't think there is an argument that can be made regarding that and that is not my concern.

I just think we are so far from ever having it de-criminalized, that in the political realm, it is a waste of an issue.

[RenoMan]

The quality of weed will go down
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[CRS]

The quality of weed will go down
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

You would think that with regulation and funding that the quality would actually go up.

Saying the quality of weed will go down is like saying alcohol quality went up during the prohibition.

:fulloffuck:

[wstce92]

This won't get my support until we have viable, portable, machine to test for marijuana in the body. A system that tells you when someone is under the influence, not just that they've had marijuana within some period of time.
I have no problem with marijuana, but I do not want anyone under the influence driving or on the job.

[Gridlock]

I must admit that I'm starting to come around to the idea. I guess the idea of my being for personal freedom is winning over the "I hate pot" side in me.

The prohibition on pot has such a jaded background with the goals being to protect the cotton industry as opposed to it having anything to do with its recreational use.

In fact the whole war on drugs thing only really kicked into high gear once the american government was found to be involved in the cocaine trade.

We all know that dealing with drug addicts by putting them in prison is not going to fix the problem, as there is more access to heroin in prison, than out of it.

So, to get my vote, we just need a detection method, and a system for keeping it from proliferating everywhere. I kind of like its secrecy, it keeps me from having to smell it everytime I go out the door. Mostly :)

[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?

[Great68]

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

https://twitter.com/#!/MayorGregor/status/139908426410102785

"
@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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Gridlock]

^lets see him say that BEFORE the election lol
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

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]

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]

...

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]

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]

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!]

Just curious, is HEMP illegal to grow here?


Nope you can grow and sell it no problems.

[death_blossom]

Nope you can grow and sell it no problems.

:rofl:

[melloman]

I must've missed this...

BC Mayors Join Growing Call to Legalize Marijuana | StoptheDrugWar.org (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/apr/27/bc_mayors_join_growing_call_lega)

Good Guy Gregor jumped onboard.. :fulloffuck:

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :troll:

[epicbeardman]

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.