Weed?
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Zardnaar
Deity
Voted yes. Although I think you're an idiot if you smoke it.
Your last statement is WRONG.
Secondhand smoke is secondhand smoke, regardless of where it comes from. Thanks to Justin Trudeau being an idiot, I am now at the mercy of my neighbors who smoke marijuana, if the smoke drifts into my suite either under the door or through an open window.
What this means is that at the very least, I end up coughing, usually get a headache, and if it's bad enough sometimes end up vomiting. I did not consent to any of that, and as someone who has multiple disabilities and chronic health issues, their actions are harming me.
Legally the manager here can't make them stop, as long as their consumption is in their own suite or on their own balcony. It's unreasonable to expect me to keep my window closed during the summer, as I need air circulation in here and cool breezes in summer.
At least the company that owns this building put it in the standard lease that - contrary to the law - tenants here are not allowed to cultivate this stuff. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever taken them to court about it.
Berzerker
Deity
Why is it a literal reading? If that was the case they would have used the ICC to ban weed instead of a tax. The court's power is spelled out in the Constitution.
Narz
keeping it real
Smoking rolling papers is bad for your health and breathing smoke is probably not ideal.
I haven't seen any evidence that eating cannabis products causes any health harm whatsoever.
And again the question is whether it should've been illegal in the first place. Berserker's post on this is quite good.
Narz
keeping it real
Why's that?
That's unfortunate. It's not going to give you cancer tho. It's more in the category of having to spend time w someone who wears excessive amounts of repulsive perfume or cologne.
That's more a matter of your neighbors needing to have respect for your wishes. Loud music is also a constant problem w neighbors but it should obviously be legal to play music while showing basic respect.
Which gives me a similar reaction, though not bad enough to make me upchuck. I once had to get off the bus because of someone using an excessive amount of makeup on her face. That stuff smells horrible, and when someone uses too much of it, I need to take myself well away from there.
warpus
In pork I trust
Have we though? A decent % of Canadians still seems to purchase their philosopher's rhubarb via grey/black market means. To this day I still hear price & quality complaints and that the black market is still a lot cheaper, although the legal stuff seems to be slowly catching up. Still playing catch-up though it seems, we don't seem to be "there" yet.
As for this being legal, it's pretty much been legal here for decades now, as far as cops on the street caring about you smoking go at least. So when it was legalized not much really changed, other than a whole bunch of legal stores and websites opening up. I'm surprised we went there before the U.S. did as well, that was nice. Back in the 1990s I assumed we'd only ever do this if the U.S. allowed us to - so we'd only ever do it after they did. Big middle finger to that, I like it. Maybe they'll catch up to us eventually - seems so silly to have it legal in so many states but not federally
It is really odd that legal weed is not cheaper than illegal. I cannot understand it, considering the stereotype of the user at least, one would expect price to the primary thing suppliers compete on. It should be cheap to produce, I would expect it to be similar to tobacco or something. How then is there not a massive decrease in the price while legalisation? Again, cf. conspiracy thread.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,663
Think of it this way. If you want ear corn, who is going to sell it to you for less, a suburban storefront, or me? Particularly if you make the store buy an enormous tax stamp, and you lock me in prison under felony law if you catch me selling?
Middlemen, marketing, and corruption take a bigger rake than the felonious risk-assessment of budding(ha!) horticulturalists.
Middlemen, marketing, and corruption take a bigger rake than the felonious risk-assessment of budding(ha!) horticulturalists.
To be honest, I would expect it to be the store front. Google says the tax is 15% in California, compared to 59.27 for tobacco. Why is not self grown tobacco products not out competing marlboro if weed sellers are? And note, we are not only talking about in the same decriminalised areas, it is cheaper illegally in the UK than legally in California.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,663
Self-grown tobacco would, and does out compete marlboro. But the government makes it difficult. To legally work around those 60% taxes you have to order the leaves cured, but whole(unless they've legislated for that since last I smoked). Then you shred them down yourself in a modified paper shredder and roll them yourself. You can probaby get your cigarettes under 1/4 cost if you do it yourself directly rolling your cured but otherwise raw produce, like black market weed, roughly(roughly, I'm not doing cost conversion on people's illegal stuff). The second you start selling those cigarettes to your friends, you're at least into tax evasion since you haven't bought your stamps(the I Can't Breathe killing(Eric Garner) happened at the hands of the state over selling singles, rather than packaged/stamped packs, if I remember correctly).
The states do not allow the product to be cheaper, these are vice goods and the ravenous public will have its share.
For the record, I'd beat the hell out of a storefront(you like charts, right? it's old, but you can update prices, it's the price/weight conversion you want), but I don't deliver unless you want a lot and that's significant.
The states do not allow the product to be cheaper, these are vice goods and the ravenous public will have its share.
For the record, I'd beat the hell out of a storefront(you like charts, right? it's old, but you can update prices, it's the price/weight conversion you want), but I don't deliver unless you want a lot and that's significant.
Last edited:
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
Where do you draw the line on "not good for health" = "we forcibly decree other people can't do this"?
The tobacco comparison is the most obvious one, but generally any activity or lack thereof could fit into this category, in principle, if we're to create victimless crime.
I will generally err on the side of freedom, unless given convincing reasons that something needs to be restricted relative to other things (usually because it directly impairs freedoms of others). The default position should be that something is legal, with some legal standard for when things can/should become illegal. I don't see any standard that would make weed illegal but not many things we allow, especially since it doesn't have to be consumed by smoking it (or consumed by humans at all, in principle).
While most growing would likely be used for smoking in reality...it doesn't HAVE to be. And that makes it legally troublesome to ban growing/possessing it. We allow possession of bleach, even though human consumption of bleach is a LOT more dangerous/less healthy than weed, and can be mixed with other substances to be significantly more dangerous to others too. That bleach has non-harmful uses is something that is also technically true for weed.
Spoiler :
That seems strange to me, that the law would prevent private ownership from banning even arbitrary substances per a contract. At least in the US, housing associations can be outright ridiculous in their enforcement, including things that are otherwise unambiguously legal in every sense.
Last edited:
And you can make sure it meets certain standards.
In general I'd be in favour of legalisation of most drugs with strict controls on manufacture etc.
As someone who used to be a footsoldier in the war on drugs I'd say the current strategy doesn't seem to be working.
warpus
In pork I trust
It's in part because those growing and supplying legally have more overheads. They have a bunch of government regulations to stick to, while those growing and selling illegally don't have any of that to worry about.
Those entering the market legally are also using more traditional business models, with certain % of profits, money spent on security, packaging, advertising, etc. Those who have been doing this illegally IMO are better adapted to the market, since they have been in this space so long and have adapted to it (plus a lot less overheads). Those selling legally have to figure out how to work and live in the legal space while appealing to the customer
That's what I assume anyway. Those selling here legally are also a bit naive (big business and not necessarily customer-side knowledgeable) and mainly sort of appeal to the "Hmm maybe i'll try some weed" part of the market and not necessarily the "I'm a regular user and know what I want" part of the market. Like with piracy though, they have also been able to catch some of the: "I enjoy the convenience the legal product provides" part of the market
So we should set the amazon of weed and make a billion? I guess something like 90% of the volume of the market is "I want to get as high as possible for the lowest cost".
I live in an apartment building that's owned by a company that has buildings in several provinces. The customer service agents are required to be fluent in French, as there are some buildings they own in Quebec and when you phone customer service you have no idea if you're going to be talking to someone reasonably local or someone halfway across the country. We're all renters. These are not condos.
It's the medical aspect of this - the government bent over backwards and then some to allow people who use it for medicinal reasons to grow a few of their own plants for this purpose. They figured that if they do this, there's even less incentive to buy from illegal sources.
The property company decided that they would not ban the consumables, just the plants themselves. After all, they're always focused on the next tenant, and must have realized that some people wouldn't want to rent a suite that had been used for a grow-op, no matter how small. And of course, there's no guarantee that someone cultivating the plants is really only doing it for personal use.
Well, illegal weed doesn't pay taxes for one. An packaging, and correct labelling etc etc.
The taxes are only 15%, and loads of stuff does not come with packaging and labelling. I think there is far too much packaging, it is for advertising mostly, and should be banned of the environment. Also, illegal weed has some of the most expensive packaging, with the mylar bags to stop the smell.
