# Canadian Weed Legalization



## Attacker3 (Sep 20, 2018)

As most of you already know, Canada is planning on legalizing marijuana on October 17th of this year. There's still a chance that it might not go through, but that's a very very slim chance as of right now, considering the amount of money invested into cannabis companies.

I mostly made this thread for a new discussion, and I thought that, hey, legalization of weed is an interesting subject! *So I ask you all, what is your opinion on Canada's handling of the Devil's Lettuce?*

For me, they've already made a massive mistake with most of the provinces. Other than Alberta and Montreal, the only way you'll be able to get weed from a government owned building. No private companies are allowed to sell them. Another thing they mess up is you need to buy all your supplies from the government. That's right, the government has a set price on what weed is going to be (The average Canadian pays $6-7 for a gram, while the average is going to be $8.90 a gram after all the taxes and such). So much for a free market. A huge issue though is that there's either not going to be enough demand, because people can get it cheaper at their local dealer, but what's probably more likely to happen, there's not going to be enough supply in many of the other provinces. 
   If i recall correctly, Ontario is just going to have a few places you can buy it, and when those places run out, they're kinda screwed. People who live hours away will have a very tough time getting to them, and so while there's a demand, nobody is going to drive a few hours to get a little bit of weed (I guarantee you there will be a limit on how much you can buy at at a time). I am pretty sure this will just help the people already selling it on the street, because there's less risk, and there will be an increased demand, and they're the only supplier.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2018)

I live in Toronto, there are weed spots every other block.

Don't worry to much about it.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 20, 2018)

ip60 said:


> I live in Toronto, there are weed spots every other block.
> 
> Don't worry to much about it.


What's a weed spot? >:'D


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> What's a weed spot? >:'D


A place to buy weed.

Not owned by the government.


----------



## cearp (Sep 20, 2018)

ok so if that's true, maybe only in montreal and alberta can private companies sell it now, but it's better than most of the world so be happy about that.
it can always change!


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 20, 2018)

ip60 said:


> A place to buy weed.
> 
> Not owned by the government.


Are they dispensaries or ahhhhhh...
New news, they actually decided to not be dumb


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 20, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> *the Devil's Lettuce?*



I stopped reading right there.

It's the 21st century, you cannot escape it.
Grow up and deal with it.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 20, 2018)

cearp said:


> ok so if that's true, maybe only in montreal and alberta can private companies sell it now, but it's better than most of the world so be happy about that.
> it can always change!


I also made this thread to discuss drugs in general. I think they should all be legalized, just based on morality. You should not be able to tell a person how they should treat their body, as it's their property.




DinohScene said:


> I stopped reading right there.
> 
> It's the 21st century, you cannot escape it.
> Grow up and deal with it.


Sheesh way to take a joke mate.


----------



## cearp (Sep 20, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> I stopped reading right there.
> 
> It's the 21st century, you cannot escape it.
> Grow up and deal with it.


haha you should have kept reading! he doesn't seem to be against it, just against the canadian government still controlling the sale of it (or something like that)
some people call it that as a joke, usually only the people who are fine with it.
people who are actually against it don't call it that


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> I stopped reading right there.
> 
> It's the 21st century, you cannot escape it.
> Grow up and deal with it.


Pretty sure he's joking.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 20, 2018)

cearp said:


> haha you should have kept reading! he doesn't seem to be against it, just against the canadian government still controlling the sale of it (or something like that)
> some people call it that as a joke, usually only the people who are fine with it.
> people who are actually against it don't call it that



That's exactly what I'm a bit upset about. They decide to stick their nose in everything, and it just makes it more expensive for everyone. At least you can grow your own still, at least I think you can!


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 20, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Sheesh way to take a joke mate.





cearp said:


> haha you should have kept reading! he doesn't seem to be against it, just against the canadian government still controlling the sale of it (or something like that)
> some people call it that as a joke, usually only the people who are fine with it.
> people who are actually against it don't call it that





ip60 said:


> Pretty sure he's joking.




Ohhh, I know it's jokingly.
I know he isn't against it.

Merely stating that people who are against it should go along with society as it evolves.
You can't escape the legalization.

If it came across as attacking to OP or w/e, I surely didn't mean it like that lol.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 20, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> Ohhh, I know it's jokingly.
> I know he isn't against it.


hehe okie


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 20, 2018)

If you don't care about the increased likelihood of death caused by some drugs, you have to at least care about air pollution and 2nd hand smoking.


----------



## Durelle (Sep 20, 2018)

Here in New Brunswick they already Builth government buildings to dispense it, I'm not against weed, but as a non smoker I hate the smell and my only worry is second hand smoke as I don't want it near me.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 20, 2018)

Cool beans. A bill was proposed about a year ago in my city but the people voted against it. >.<

Here is hoping it passes everywhere. The amount of BS "science" against it can be debunked with even a bit of knowledge.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Sep 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> If you don't care about the increased likelihood of death caused by some drugs, you have to at least care about air pollution and 2nd hand smoking.


no drug kills more people that pharmaceuticals. Also cannabis can not kill anybody. I don't think it's a good habit to have in general but I have to call out bs when I see it.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 20, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> no drug kills more people that pharmaceuticals. Also cannabis can not kill anybody. I don't think it's a good habit to have in general but I have to call out bs when I see it.


Pharmaceuticals aside, I was referring to the "legalize all drugs" comment. Not weed itself.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Pharmaceuticals aside, I was referring to the "legalize all drugs" comment. Not weed itself.


Mate, most drugs don't even make smoke, and the amount of smoke is so minuscule it wouldn't even be noticeable. You could probably have 500 people smoking and not reach the amount of pollution that a car going half a mile makes.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Sep 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Pharmaceuticals aside, I was referring to the "legalize all drugs" comment. Not weed itself.


Why are you referring to legalizing all drugs when that's not being proposed? Also, I don't think anybody wants to legalize meth other than meth heads but they don't live long enough to organize into a lobbying power.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 20, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Mate, most drugs don't even make smoke, and the amount of smoke is so minuscule it wouldn't even be noticeable. You could probably have 500 people smoking and not reach the amount of pollution that a car going half a mile makes.


Tobacco air pollution.



comput3rus3r said:


> Why are you referring to legalizing all drugs when that's not being proposed? Also, I don't think anybody wants to legalize meth other than meth heads but they don't live long enough to organize into a lobbying power.





Attacker3 said:


> I also made this thread to discuss drugs in general. I think they should all be legalized, just based on morality. You should not be able to tell a person how they should treat their body, as it's their property.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Tobacco air pollution.


We're referring to two different things. You're saying that tobacco smoke is more toxic, which I agree, but it's not going to affect the climate at all or anything. Just don't go near someone who's smoking if you don't want to deal with that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 22, 2018)

I have no objection to legal marijuana whatsoever. What concerns me is, are people going to be allowed to live on, or with the aid of, public assistance and take that money and buy weed with it, go home and sack out on the couch with a bong and some Frito's while someone else works a job to support them doing that?? Yes, I think that will happen, because it already happens. It'll just be even easier and more permissible.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2018)

Weed should have never been illegal to begin with and shouldn't be illegal now. It was only made and kept illegal purely based on racist reasons and there's never been a legitimate reason to keep it illegal.
I actually do smoke weed because I have an immune system disorder where my immune system attacks my nerves. There's only a few treatments for it and honestly they all suck, minus weed. Weed is the only drug I can take that treats the pain without being an addictive opioid and it's also the only method of treatment that isn't an immunity suppressant.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 22, 2018)

I personally don't care for it or even like it, but good for those who do I guess?


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> We're referring to two different things. You're saying that tobacco smoke is more toxic, which I agree, but it's not going to affect the climate at all or anything. Just don't go near someone who's smoking if you don't want to deal with that.


It surely doesn't help the climate. I'm just saying, why risk it when their so much other drugs? Not just tobacco, but any new drug that could negatively effect the environment directly.

As for avoidance, the problem is that some of them will go near us, not caring where they are smoking. Granted, that problem seem to have been reduced.



Hanafuda said:


> I have no objection to legal marijuana whatsoever. What concerns me is, are people going to be allowed to live on, or with the aid of, public assistance and take that money and buy weed with it, go home and sack out on the couch with a bong and some Frito's while someone else works a job to support them doing that?? Yes, I think that will happen, because it already happens. It'll just be even easier and more permissible.


So, what are you saying? Anyone with public assistance should be banned from drugs?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> So, what are you saying? Anyone with public assistance should be banned from drugs?




No, the other way around. Anyone on drugs should be banned from receiving public assistance. You can't 'ban' drugs, it doesn't work.


----------



## Plstic (Sep 22, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I have no objection to legal marijuana whatsoever. What concerns me is, are people going to be allowed to live on, or with the aid of, public assistance and take that money and buy weed with it, go home and sack out on the couch with a bong and some Frito's while someone else works a job to support them doing that?? Yes, I think that will happen, because it already happens. It'll just be even easier and more permissible.


That already happens even though it's illegal lmao. People smoke pot all the time in low income housing.


----------



## Viri (Sep 22, 2018)

I don't care if it's legal. But, I don't think people should be allowed to smoke out in public, same with drinking. You should only be able to smoke in certain places like a bar, and your own house.

Also, they're breaking a few UN treaties to legalize it. I don't like the idea of a country breaking a treaty. They should have withdrawn from it properly, instead of breaking it.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Sep 22, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> What's a weed spot? >:'D


A bit like a duty-free airport, but for weed.
Also weed is smoked in all kinds of housing.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> No, the other way around. Anyone on drugs should be banned from receiving public assistance.


Why?  They don't take away public assistance for using prescription drugs, which are often way more debilitating than marijuana.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> No, the other way around. Anyone on drugs should be banned from receiving public assistance. You can't 'ban' drugs, it doesn't work.


Either way, I'm not sure how I feel about welfare being drug tested. Maybe for addicts and taking them to rehab, but for everyone that is using drugs?



Plstic said:


> That already happens even though it's illegal lmao. People smoke pot all the time in low income housing.


I didn't even know this was a thing. Apparently, from what you say, banning people from aid because of drugs isn't working either and from a quick glance, seems like a lot of money to do these drug tests.


----------



## Plstic (Sep 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Either way, I'm not sure how I feel about welfare being drug tested. Maybe for addicts and taking them to rehab, but for everyone that is using drugs?
> 
> 
> I didn't even know this was a thing. Apparently, from what you say, banning people from aid because of drugs isn't working either and from a quick glance, seems like a lot of money to do these drug tests.


Yeah, doing all those drug tests will never work. It would cost way too much money. They should just legalize pot and take away the culture of being some big drug dealer.


----------



## cearp (Sep 22, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I have no objection to legal marijuana whatsoever. What concerns me is, are people going to be allowed to live on, or with the aid of, public assistance and take that money and buy weed with it, go home and sack out on the couch with a bong and some Frito's while someone else works a job to support them doing that?? Yes, I think that will happen, because it already happens. It'll just be even easier and more permissible.


Poor people already do that with food and alcohol. 
One more drug probably won't make much difference. 
As long as public assistance still makes you do stuff, like prove you have applied for jobs, or prove you are still sick and disabled, it's fine.


----------



## ChaoticCinnabon (Sep 25, 2018)

It's a big mistake to make that stuff go legally recreational, medical is fine but letting random people legally smoke it is a very bad idea.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 25, 2018)

ChaoticCinnabon said:


> It's a big mistake to make that stuff go legally recreational, medical is fine but letting random people legally smoke it is a very bad idea.


Can you elaborate?


----------



## ChaoticCinnabon (Sep 25, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Can you elaborate?



If it's intended to curb illegal usage of weed, it will not work, the dosage you'd get in legal shops would likely be very different than what they sell on the streets. Weeds bad for you and the people around you as well, so making it mainstream makes 2nd hand smoking more common, and nobody should have to deal with those fumes literally everywhere.

This is all my opinion, and I say it as such.


----------



## cearp (Sep 25, 2018)

ChaoticCinnabon said:


> If it's intended to curb illegal usage of weed, it will not work, the dosage you'd get in legal shops would likely be very different than what they sell on the streets. Weeds bad for you and the people around you as well, so making it mainstream makes 2nd hand smoking more common, and nobody should have to deal with those fumes literally everywhere.
> 
> This is all my opinion, and I say it as such.


Oreos are bad for me too but they taste good. 
So sometimes I eat them. 
Same thing here maybe.
Better than alcohol. It can be legal but still illegal to drink in public etc, laws are very new with this stuff so they will probably change.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 25, 2018)

ChaoticCinnabon said:


> If it's intended to curb illegal usage of weed, it will not work, the dosage you'd get in legal shops would likely be very different than what they sell on the streets.


Hmm?  I'm not sure what the laws in Canada are like, but here in Colorado you can buy up to an ounce of THC products per day, so basically as much as anyone would need.  Teen use and illegal use has declined here since legalizing as well.



ChaoticCinnabon said:


> Weeds bad for you and the people around you as well, so making it mainstream makes 2nd hand smoking more common, and nobody should have to deal with those fumes literally everywhere.


From experience selling it, most people don't smoke.  You've got THC edibles, topicals, tinctures, sprays, concentrates, and vape pens in both re-usable and disposable forms.  Regardless, even the second-hand smoke is essentially harmless when comparing to cigarettes.  Cannabinoids have actually been shown to attack cancer cells, almost the exact opposite of cigarette ingredients which create cancer.  You can also get non-psychoactive cannabinoids like CBD.  It's a neuro-protector that also has anti-inflammatory and calming effects but won't get you high.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 25, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Teen use and illegal use has declined here since legalizing as well.


I doubt it to be honest. It might have stayed the same but not have gone down, it's more likely that the police don't really care as much anymore, and aren't beating down those god damn hippies for smoking a little bit of Mary Jane. But yeah, a lot of people don't smoke and weed is a great thing for everyone, considering the amount of medicinal and industrial uses for it (yeah, a lot of products made nowadays would be made cheaper with hemp)


----------



## aykay55 (Sep 25, 2018)

I don't agree with what you say about "It's their body, they can do what they want" because yes it's their body but you, the government, are responsible to make sure your citizens are safe. That means protecting them from harm, both intentional and accidental. And it is not just their body, when they're high/low/drunk/fuckingInsane they can harm themselves and others, as well as other's property.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 25, 2018)

aykay55 said:


> I don't agree with what you say about "It's their body, they can do what they want" because yes it's their body but you, the government, are responsible to make sure your citizens are safe. That means protecting them from harm, both intentional and accidental. And it is not just their body, when they're high/low/drunk/fuckingInsane they can harm themselves and others, as well as other's property.


Ah yes, which works out well, looking back at history, giving the government power over people. Man, remember the slave trade? Jeez that was pretty cool you know, oh and the Holocaust! Now THAT was a doozey!

Listen pal, if you don't like freedom from oppression, that's fine, but the government has no place in my body, and will never have a place in it. I grew my body myself, I am a big boy now because it took energy provided by my mommy, which allowed me to create this. Let me ask you something, if you make a flute out of wood, does anyone else have the right to take it away or tell you what you can or cannot play? If you answered yes, that's fine, and you can have that opinion. If you say "It depends on who takes it or who tells me" then you are being a massive hypocrite. If the government is just a bunch of people who decide the direction a country goes, then what makes them any different than a person on the street? If you claim that they have the moral right to tell you what to do with your flute, then you are saying the government is better and higher than the average man, and that's what a lot of people call authoritarianism or tyranny.

One person cannot have more rights than another, and that applies to the government and corporations too, and if you haven't noticed, they both have more rights than the average man. Absolutely disgusting.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 25, 2018)

aykay55 said:


> I don't agree with what you say about "It's their body, they can do what they want" because yes it's their body but you, the government, are responsible to make sure your citizens are safe. That means protecting them from harm, both intentional and accidental. And it is not just their body, when they're high/low/drunk/fuckingInsane they can harm themselves and others, as well as other's property.


Violent tendencies are amplified by certain drugs (alcohol often included), but weed isn't one of them.  It's mostly just a social or solitary "chill" drug.  People using cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts and the like are the ones you sometimes have to worry about being attacked by.

The one thing you might attack while using THC is a bag of Doritos.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 25, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Violent tendencies are amplified by certain drugs (alcohol often included), but weed isn't one of them.  It's mostly just a social or solitary "chill" drug.  People using cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts and the like are the ones you sometimes have to worry about being attacked by.


You obviously haven't used cocaine or meth. I have a cool friend who does coke and he just gets really happy as heck. And not to mention that people usually go to bath salts and crack because there's no safer alternatives around. If we're going to be honest, stuff like heroin isn't even that bad. It fucks up your life, but doesn't really hurt you badly or cause you to go insane.

There's also a reason why the worst one of all, PCP, is out of style. It's because it made you go absolutely nuts, and people don't want that.


----------



## aykay55 (Sep 25, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Ah yes, which works out well, looking back at history, giving the government power over people. Man, remember the slave trade? Jeez that was pretty cool you know, oh and the Holocaust! Now THAT was a doozey!
> 
> Listen pal, if you don't like freedom from oppression, that's fine, but the government has no place in my body, and will never have a place in it. I grew my body myself, I am a big boy now because it took energy provided by my mommy, which allowed me to create this. Let me ask you something, if you make a flute out of wood, does anyone else have the right to take it away or tell you what you can or cannot play? If you answered yes, that's fine, and you can have that opinion. If you say "It depends on who takes it or who tells me" then you are being a massive hypocrite. If the government is just a bunch of people who decide the direction a country goes, then what makes them any different than a person on the street? If you claim that they have the moral right to tell you what to do with your flute, then you are saying the government is better and higher than the average man, and that's what a lot of people call authoritarianism or tyranny.
> 
> One person cannot have more rights than another, and that applies to the government and corporations too, and if you haven't noticed, they both have more rights than the average man. Absolutely disgusting.


First, I was talking about it in a perfect world, where the government is not corrupt. The government no matter where you go or who you ask will always have a responsibility over the people it governs.

Actually, you did not grow your body yourself. The government provided you with food, water, education, jobs for your parents/guardians, emergency services, healthcare (I assume you are a resident of Canada), protections, freedoms, and other services you may or may not have used, but nonetheless were readily available to you (such as a suicide helpline or the like).

Yes, at my home or out in public (for the most part) no one can take my flute or tell me what to play on it. However, if you made a flute back in high school and started playing it would be confiscated and the only way you could play one would be to join the school's music program, where they tell you what you can and can't play. See, you are on the school's property, and they can in fact tell you what to do. You are living on the government's property, and they can tell you what you can and can't do.

The government as a body is higher than the average man. The difference between the bunch of people who run the government and a person on the street is, like you said, that it is a bunch of people. The government provides you with all these services and freedoms you need in return for your loyalty.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Violent tendencies are amplified by certain drugs (alcohol often included), but weed isn't one of them.  It's mostly just a social or solitary "chill" drug.  People using cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts and the like are the ones you sometimes have to worry about being attacked by.
> 
> The one thing you might attack while using THC is a bag of Doritos.


I was referring to anything considered harmful the slightest to your body, ranging from drugs to self-harm/suicide. The government has to make sure you and everyone else is safe.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 25, 2018)

aykay55 said:


> I was referring to anything considered harmful the slightest to your body, ranging from drugs to self-harm/suicide. The government has to make sure you and everyone else is safe.


According to who? Who gave them this right to do so? 



aykay55 said:


> First, I was talking about it in a perfect world, where the government is not corrupt.


So your entire argument is based off of something that is unattainable. Good to know



aykay55 said:


> The government no matter where you go or who you ask will always have a responsibility over the people it governs.


And again, who gave them this right? if you say the people did, then I suppose you're fine with what happened with the democratically elected National Socialist German Worker's Party was doing the absolute right thing. They only killed those jews to protect the rest of the country! Poor Adolf didn't want to do it, but for the security of the nation, and the well-being of it's participants? Then I guess the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!


aykay55 said:


> You are living on the government's property, and they can tell you what you can and can't do.


So would you be fine with a big corporation owning lots of land and forcing people to become slaves or else they would have their flute (read: body(read: life)) taken away? You don't think that people have inalienable rights as individuals?

Let's start of with this, what rights do individuals have?


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 25, 2018)

damn and we're gonig backwards thanks trump -sarcasim-

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

dude don't you know the medical benefits? plus it's not nearly as toxic to the body a tabacco (if at all) and tabacco isn't illegal and it causes cancer (known fact)if anything tabacco should be illegal cause it kills slowly but surely


----------



## aykay55 (Sep 25, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> According to who? Who gave them this right to do so?
> 
> 
> So your entire argument is based off of something that is unattainable. Good to know
> ...


YOUUUUUUUUUU DID! Ok sorry. You gave the gov the right to do so by continuing to live there, not protesting, and paying your taxes. And if you became a citizen in a way besides being born there, you signed papers confirming your loyalty to the government. If you're a national you have an understood contract Since the land belongs to the government they can do whatever they want (I'm not talking from a moral perspective, just a realistic one.). The only way that a land can maintain peace is by everyone submitting to the same entity (the government). It's the same way religion works. In return, the government is giving you all the things I've listed and more. 

Let me get this straight, you think the government shouldn't interfere at all with your lives? Then how will they keep you safe? In the US we have all these departments to protect us and our rights and freedoms. Are you saying that the government should just let people kill themselves? NO! They're supposed to help them.

For the Germany thing, it depends on your perspective. The Germans' perspective was twisted, which is why they hated on Jews. However, the government *was '*protecting" its people, so they were doing what a government should do. However, the corrupt German gov was using it only as an excuse to harm Jews, or basically anyone who wasn't Aryan blonde hair blue eyes, which is why it is wrong. 

Humans have rights to life, freedom and happiness.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 25, 2018)

aykay55 said:


> you think the government shouldn't interfere at all with your lives? Then how will they keep you safe? In the US we have all these departments to protect us and our rights and freedoms.


They should not, people should be responsible for their own protection. And you know what's really weird? With all those billions upon billions of dollars (an absolutely unfathomable amount of money) going into national defense, they couldn't figure out a plan so shove 2 commercial planes into the twin towers. The reason why is an economic one, by the way. They'll continue to get worse and worse at protecting. If you're curious, I would recommend The Myth Of National Defense


aykay55 said:


> Humans have rights to life, freedom and happiness.


Ok that's nice and all but what does freedom mean to you? You can't just say "freedom" and not explain what it means to you.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 26, 2018)

aykay55 said:


> First, I was talking about it in a perfect world, where the government is not corrupt. The government no matter where you go or who you ask will always have a responsibility over the people it governs.
> 
> Actually, you did not grow your body yourself. The government provided you with food, water, education, jobs for your parents/guardians, emergency services, healthcare (I assume you are a resident of Canada), protections, freedoms, and other services you may or may not have used, but nonetheless were readily available to you (such as a suicide helpline or the like).
> 
> ...



It is not a perfect world and history has shown time and time again that giving too much power does things for corruption. To that end law making, and fundamental aspects of legal systems, anywhere you would probably care to live recognise that the world is not perfect and seek to limit power.

Secondly the government did not provide "food, water, education, jobs for your parents/guardians". It might be said to have provided the foundations for that but someone else dug the rocks out of the mine which turned into metals, silicon, salt, oil.... that someone sold to make something else, which was in turn accounted for be someone else, which was delivered by someone else, the greater product in turn sold by someone else and so on and so on and so on. There might have been those that were provided for by government led things discussed elsewhere but that is almost incidental (and from certain economic views are undesirable as in most case they are not providing a service, making things, creating new items..., however the basic ones you will encounter are rather short sighted for my taste, or at least rather US centric which is a place which does things slightly differently to many other places), and in any case the government is typically said to be merely acting as another entity (military law, and some aspects of judicial oversight are a fuzzy edge in some cases).

Back to fundamental aspects of law you are generally seen as an individual able to do what you will.

School is not a great analogy. It is closer to a job, which is a voluntary action and usually comes with a set of expected behaviours, than a rights code. Furthermore you (or more accurately your parents) effectively choose for you to attend that school. If they wanted to educate you themselves it is usually an option (I don't know the full nature of Canadian home schooling offhand, it is broadly similar in most of the English speaking world though) and you could well have been given all the latitude to play with your skin flute all day long.
Likewise it, it being the land, is not the government's property in most cases in the western world (we will skip things like China, and old history with claims in lands being settled or abstract legal concepts like rex pax). Once more it is often baked in at very low levels in law making and the laws themselves that the government has to show mightily good reason to so much as step on your land.

The government does not provide you with freedoms. The freedoms are generally seen as a right of being human. The government is supposed to try to make sure those freedoms are not stepped on and that you do not do step on the freedoms of others. It was also figured out along the way that they can do things which might not make financial sense for private entities to do but will benefit the population at large, thus they commonly (but not exclusively) build roads, hospitals, schools, emergency services... Some don't care for such a thing and would prefer they leave it at the previous but that is a different discussion.

"harmful the slightest to your body"
Medically speaking that is tricky to define. Everything you introduce into your body has a multitude of effects, some of which may be desirable, others may not. Every medic will tell you that and I would not trust one that did not have that as a core tenet of their logic.

I should also note you are not loyal to your government. The government is a group which will likely change in a few years. In most cases you are not even required to be loyal to your country (it is pretty much China, North Korea and the US that has any kind of loyalty pledge), though that can be fuzzy depending upon how you want to approach it.

I am not entirely sure where you learned your ideas on how things work from (I am familiar with most approaches seen in the world today, and no small number elsewhere) but they are not popular ones in the west, not in any of the many philosophical stripes and usual means of delineating political views.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> You obviously haven't used cocaine or meth. I have a cool friend who does coke and he just gets really happy as heck. And not to mention that people usually go to bath salts and crack because there's no safer alternatives around. If we're going to be honest, stuff like heroin isn't even that bad. It fucks up your life, but doesn't really hurt you badly or cause you to go insane.


Just drawing on my own experiences with users of those drugs.  A lot of times it's more the droughts without a given drug that make addicts turn to theft or violence, rather than the drug itself.  Although I'd argue that strong of a 'need' to have it is also a component of the drug.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 26, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Just drawing on my own experiences with users of those drugs.  A lot of times it's more the droughts without a given drug that make addicts turn to theft or violence, rather than the drug itself.  Although I'd argue that strong of a 'need' to have it is also a component of the drug.


Yeah that's pretty much it, not having a drug like that could make people violent from withdrawls, I know when my city made a big bust a little while later I saw the newspapers showing a lot of assaults and thefts. Interesting dynamic.


----------



## Mark McDonut (Sep 26, 2018)

I seriously can't take drug policies seriously after the whole fentanyl/oxycodone thing. We get drugs pushed as poisons in politics, but freely distributed and prescribed by the biggest earners in the u.s.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 26, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> So your entire argument is based off of something that is unattainable. Good to know


Kind of like anarcho-capitalism.



Attacker3 said:


> They should not, people should be responsible for their own protection. And you know what's really weird? With all those billions upon billions of dollars (an absolutely unfathomable amount of money) going into national defense, they couldn't figure out a plan so shove 2 commercial planes into the twin towers.


So because people aren't prefect, we should give up on our strongest defenses and ignore all the time they have been protecting us?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Kind of like anarcho-capitalism.
> 
> 
> So because people aren't prefect, we should give up on our strongest defenses and ignore all the time they have been protecting us?



This is a thread about weed rights but you just _had _to bring up his views on economics...

More on topic, I find it interesting how bipartisan this issue is. Except for extreme left and right, most of the people I've met on either side think that weed should be legal to some extent.


----------



## cearp (Sep 26, 2018)

aykay55 said:


> However, the corrupt German gov was using it only as an excuse to harm Jews, or basically anyone who wasn't Aryan blonde hair blue eyes, which is why it is wrong.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
lol


----------



## BORTZ (Sep 26, 2018)

I just recently watch the Trailer Park Boys movie "Don't Legalize It" Good stuff lol


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2018)

aykay55 said:


> See, you are on the school's property, and they can in fact tell you what to do. You are living on the government's property, and they can tell you what you can and can't do


BTW, while FAST already mentioned why this analogy was wrong, i thought i should also comment.

While this may be a more American viewpoint, I don't see the government as a property owner. The government exists 'of the people, by the people,for the people'. If anything, we're (supposed to be) the ones renting it out to the government. He's just the worker who comes around every Saturday to clean up the garden and fix the window.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 26, 2018)

First off, I'm glad the government changed the rules on how they're handling the legalization. It sort of reminded me of the way they handle hard liquor in some of the podunk Southern states. I lived in Mississippi for a couple years and you can only buy liquor in certain licensed establishments, and those establishments were forced to close on Sundays, and I believe they also had to close by some ridiculously early time like 9pm or something. We have a long way to go in the States before we get anywhere near Canada's level.



Attacker3 said:


> I also made this thread to discuss drugs in general. I think they should all be legalized, just based on morality. You should not be able to tell a person how they should treat their body, as it's their property.


In my thread, I actually laid out the basic groundwork to some sort of licensing and quality and safety standards for drugs that require some sort of processing or synthesis.


DinohScene said:


> Merely stating that people who are against it should go along with society as it evolves.
> You can't escape the legalization.


Here in the US, it's actually going backwards. Luckily for me, it only passed the House and there's still a chance to stop it. As if the overreach of the DEA wasn't bad enough, yet another unelected government body wants the power to create laws out of thin air with no checks and balances. This ridiculous trend has to stop now. NO government in the world should have the authority to ban fucking plants of all things, unless of course they are actually proven to be an ecological nuisance that could bring harm to humans.


KingVamp said:


> I'm just saying, why risk it when their so much other drugs? Not just tobacco, but any new drug that could negatively effect the environment directly.


New drugs only come about because the old ones get heavily regulated or banned outright. Just like with alcohol prohibition, people created moonshine, which was not only dangerous to the people making it, but also the ones consuming it. 


Viri said:


> Also, they're breaking a few UN treaties to legalize it. I don't like the idea of a country breaking a treaty. They should have withdrawn from it properly, instead of breaking it.


They should have never entered those treaties to begin with. They threaten the sovereignty of the nations involved. I'm sorry but no foreign body should have the right to limit the liberties of other nations. Really though, what's going to happen to Canada for breaking the treaty though? The only ones that would be willing to go to war over it is Russia, and that won't go too well with USA being right next door. Russia is the only country to speak out against Canada for this as well.


aykay55 said:


> I don't agree with what you say about "It's their body, they can do what they want" because yes it's their body but you, the government, are responsible to make sure your citizens are safe. That means protecting them from harm, both intentional and accidental. And it is not just their body, when they're high/low/drunk/fuckingInsane they can harm themselves and others, as well as other's property.


The government's job is to protect it's citizens from outside threats, either acts of war or terrorism, or just violence in general. It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. Also, if a broad-spectrum drug legalization was ever a thing, I would propose harsher punishments for actual crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Domestic violence, child abuse/neglect? That should be punished as harshly as manslaughter or murder if the person is under the influence of any sort of mind-altering drug or alcohol. Heavier crackdowns on intoxicated driving as well. You know, crimes that actually bring harm to another person. Most drug users, you can't tell who they are, because they use them responsibly and don't let it interfere with their work or family life. They don't go out driving when they're nodding on opioids, they don't neglect or abuse their kids or partners. They pay their taxes and lead productive lives. The extreme addicts you always hear about are a fringe minority, but they get reported on constantly because it pushes an agenda. The weed people are just as guilty of pushing the "opioid epidemic" witch hunt as the government is. 

They're only making it harder for people who actually need these drugs to get them. Addicts and dealers always find a way to get them despite growing regulations. Fentanyl is so cheap and goes such a long way (this is a drug whose dosages are measured in micrograms), that the dealers and cartels won't bother trying to smuggle anything else these days. They'll simply dilute it and call it heroin, or even worse press fake pills with it. That's what's killing people, heavy regulations and people trying to bypass those regulations. They are the ones who created the "epidemic" to begin with by banning safer alternatives and now coming full circle again. "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure" has never been more true.


Xzi said:


> Just drawing on my own experiences with users of those drugs. A lot of times it's more the droughts without a given drug that make addicts turn to theft or violence, rather than the drug itself. Although I'd argue that strong of a 'need' to have it is also a component of the drug.


While nothing will eliminate this phenomenon entirely, legalization of all drugs would curb this significantly. The substances would be higher quality, and not cut or diluted, and probably either be the same price or cheaper, giving people more bang for their buck so to speak.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> This is a thread about weed rights but you just _had _to bring up his views on economics...


You are right, but to be fair, I'm not the one that started that tangent in this topic.  



Subtle Demise said:


> New drugs only come about because the old ones get heavily regulated or banned outright. Just like with alcohol prohibition, people created moonshine, which was not only dangerous to the people making it, but also the ones consuming it.


I'm still not convinced that literally legalizing every single drug is the answer. Let's say all and any drugs were legal, you don't think people would make worse drugs just because they can?


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 26, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> You are right, but to be fair, I'm not the one that started that tangent in this topic.
> 
> 
> I'm still not convinced that literally legalizing every single drug is the answer. Let's say all and any drugs were legal, you don't think people would make worse drugs just because they can?


They probably would, honestly. Most people would probably avoid those though.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

First the state I live in drug tests welfare receipts and a single digit percentage fail the tests. I know this is Canada in question, but I seriously doubt it is very different here. These theory that poor people spend all their money on drugs so they get welfare is ridiculous. 

Moving right along here, some of you are absolutely correct. Marijuana is not nearly as dangerous or insidious as some of the legal prescription drugs you can get, legitimately or not. I have lost friends to opiates, to sedatives, and to a mix. I haven't lost any to marijuana.

The legality of drugs isn't about the effect it has on your body. It isn't about how useful or useless it is. The smear campaign on marijuana has been absolute while for years people ignored the proof that opiates were addictive and killing people. 

Marijuana doesn't even feel the same way as those drugs. If you take enough opiates you feel this warm enfolding feeling, it's great and sickly sweet all at once and nothing could be wrong. You want to chase that feeling, to feel warmer and warmer until you're cold as ice and buried in the ground. 

Rather marijuana is addictive or not, I've never seen someone die from it, and if it is, I've only ever seen functioning addicts. I've never seen someone sell their body for marijuana, I have seen it firsthand for heroin. I've seen it for crack as well. 

I would say that marijuana is no more harmful than other drugs that are legalized and certainly no more dangerous than alcohol. We tried illegalizing that once in the states and it went horribly so I see no reason not to legalize and regulate marijuana in much the same way.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 15, 2018)

its in 2 days


----------



## KHEOPS (Oct 15, 2018)

Unfortunately I am French, and of course France prefers that we are the first European consumer of antidepressants! But as far as drugs are concerned, we are the last Europeans, or it is forbidden
Wtf


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Oct 15, 2018)

KHEOPS said:


> Unfortunately I am French...


I agree. Should be recognized as a disability.


----------



## KHEOPS (Oct 15, 2018)

Yeah, it's clear.
So to relax I'm going to roll a big bastard, you're mean!


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 17, 2018)

It will becomes legal in every single province once they reach 10AM

For example, at 7am here in Quebec, it's legal in British Columbia

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

oh nvm, it became legal at midnight
it's just stores that open at 10AM


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 17, 2018)

Cool. Now to see how easy it is to access where I live.
If it isn't, I suppose the good old ways will be quite less seen as bad now.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 18, 2018)

I'm all for legalisation, but I hope that people won't start driving under the influence of weed now. A lot of people downplay the effects of cannabis, as much as claiming that *SMOKING* a joint is harmless. Right. Billions of dollars spent in campaigns to tell people that smoking is bad for you but weed is ok.

I hope to be wrong and that people will be responsible adults.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 18, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> I'm all for legalisation, but I hope that people won't start driving under the influence of weed now. A lot of people downplay the effects of cannabis, as much as claiming that *SMOKING* a joint is harmless. Right. Billions of dollars spent in campaigns to tell people that smoking is bad for you but weed is ok.
> 
> I hope to be wrong and that people will be responsible adults.


well, there was before, there will be now

I know that lot of people weren't buying cannabis because it was illegal
That was their only reason for not buying it
So I guess those won't smoke and drive (since it's illegal as well)
However, those who were buying it before (illegaly) and who were smoking and driving, will probably continue to smoke and drive, no doubt on it


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 19, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Billions of dollars spent in campaigns to tell people that smoking is bad for you but weed is ok.


One is a plant and the other is a mixture of toxic additives laced with addictive nicotine. Big difference. I'll bet if you looked back to just normal tobacco cigarettes they wouldn't be nearly as harmful.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 19, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> One is a plant and the other is a mixture of toxic additives laced with addictive nicotine. Big difference. I'll bet if you looked back to just normal tobacco cigarettes they wouldn't be nearly as harmful.


Please tell me you're joking.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 19, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Please tell me you're joking.


"Hurr durr, pls tell me ur joking >:c "
Shit keeps getting added to them, pal






Cigs are engineered to make you get hooked, while the genetic engineering of weed is to change how the high feels and how it tastes only.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Oct 19, 2018)

Smoking anything is bad for your lungs, but tobacco is much worse. 

I'm just waiting for the Nicorette version of buds & THC.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 19, 2018)

Even before this, I have to agree that cigs seems to be worse.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 19, 2018)

ChaoticCinnabon said:


> If it's intended to curb illegal usage of weed, it will not work, the dosage you'd get in legal shops would likely be very different than what they sell on the streets. Weeds bad for you and the people around you as well, so making it mainstream makes 2nd hand smoking more common, and nobody should have to deal with those fumes literally everywhere.
> 
> This is all my opinion, and I say it as such.


lmao

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Song of storms said:


> I'm all for legalisation, but I hope that people won't start driving under the influence of weed now. A lot of people downplay the effects of cannabis, as much as claiming that *SMOKING* a joint is harmless. Right. Billions of dollars spent in campaigns to tell people that smoking is bad for you but weed is ok.
> 
> I hope to be wrong and that people will be responsible adults.


also lmao

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Song of storms said:


> Please tell me you're joking.


He's 100% correct. Are you joking? are just willfully uninformed?


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 19, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Please tell me you're joking.


He's right actually
Cigs are much much much more dangerous than mary...


----------



## Imparasite (Oct 19, 2018)

Canada the Next Far Cry 6


----------



## ChaoticCinnabon (Oct 19, 2018)

cearp said:


> Oreos are bad for me too but they taste good.
> So sometimes I eat them.
> Same thing here maybe.
> Better than alcohol. It can be legal but still illegal to drink in public etc, laws are very new with this stuff so they will probably change.



You are very correct, I'm just worried over people doing shit when they're high.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 19, 2018)

ChaoticCinnabon said:


> You are very correct, I'm just worried over people doing shit when they're high.


news flash they were smoking before it was legal


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 19, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> I'm all for legalisation, but I hope that people won't start driving under the influence of weed now. A lot of people downplay the effects of cannabis, as much as claiming that *SMOKING* a joint is harmless. Right. Billions of dollars spent in campaigns to tell people that smoking is bad for you but weed is ok.
> 
> I hope to be wrong and that people will be responsible adults.


Why? They'll only be going like 7 mph. Waiting for stop signs to turn green and whatnot.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 19, 2018)

IP60 said:


> news flash they were smoking before it was legal


exactly... lot of people werent smoking weed only because it was illegal
If they take some now, they surely won't drive either after smoking because it is illegal as well

as you say, those who will smoke and drive are surely those who were smoking before


----------



## ChaoticCinnabon (Oct 19, 2018)

IP60 said:


> news flash they were smoking before it was legal



I'm aware of that, it's just more common now.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 19, 2018)

This morning, I heard at news that most cannabis store are sold out
Same for the online store


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 20, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> "Hurr durr, pls tell me ur joking >:c "
> Shit keeps getting added to them, pal
> 
> 
> ...


You, as well as all the potheads that bitched at me, need a good pair of glasses.

Smoking cigarettes is bad, yes. Smoking weed is also bad because of what you're inhaling. I never claimed that smoking cigarettes isn't bad.


----------



## cearp (Oct 20, 2018)

yeah I guess smoking anything is bad.
but no one said you need to smoke it.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 20, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> You, as well as all the potheads that bitched at me, need a good pair of glasses.
> 
> Smoking cigarettes is bad, yes. Smoking weed is also bad because of what you're inhaling. I never claimed that smoking cigarettes isn't bad.


The worst recorded physical case from smoking marijuana was wheezing and a cough.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 20, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> The worst recorded physical case from smoking marijuana was wheezing and a cough.





> Smoke is harmful to lung health. Whether from burning wood, tobacco or marijuana, toxins and carcinogens are released from the combustion of materials. Smoke from marijuana combustion has been shown to contain many of the same toxins, irritants and carcinogens as tobacco smoke.4-7
> 
> Beyond just what's in the smoke alone, marijuana is typically smoked differently than tobacco. Marijuana smokers tend to inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than cigarette smokers, which leads to a greater exposure per breath to tar.8
> 
> Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxins and carcinogens found in directly inhaled marijuana smoke, in similar amounts if not more.5 While there is no data on the health consequences of breathing secondhand marijuana smoke, there is concern that it could cause harmful health effects, especially among vulnerable children in the home. Additional research on the health effects of secondhand marijuana smoke is needed.




https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 20, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html


Even in that article, the only condition that isnt associated with immunosuppressive disorders like hiv (the whole section about lung damage from smoke) has this clause at the end

"However, it's not possible to establish whether these occur more frequently among marijuana smokers than the general population.4"


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 20, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Even in that article, the only condition that isnt associated with immunosuppressive disorders like hiv (the whole section about lung damage from smoke) has this clause at the end
> 
> "However, it's not possible to establish whether these occur more frequently among marijuana smokers than the general population.4"


So you're saying that, although they found the same toxins in joints as there are in cigarettes, smoking them has no drawbacks. Ok.

And then y'all wonder why people find potheads annoying. It's like talking to a holocaust denier.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 20, 2018)

Guys guys guys
Remember that before legalisation, mary was sold by criminals?
Well, as you may know, Hell's and Mafia put lot of thing in those drugs
Now, the mary produced by government and their companies will be pure mary
There won't have all those shity shit Hell's put in their drug to sell more


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 20, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> So you're saying that, although they found the same toxins in joints as there are in cigarettes, smoking them has no drawbacks. Ok.


He never said that.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 20, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> So you're saying that, although they found the same toxins in joints as there are in cigarettes, smoking them has no drawbacks. Ok.
> 
> And then y'all wonder why people find potheads annoying. It's like talking to a holocaust denier.


I'm not saying its 100% safe, nor do I smoke pot. But so far the only significant studies only show damage to the myelin sheathing of very specific neurons.


----------



## x65943 (Oct 20, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> I'm not saying its 100% safe, nor do I smoke pot. But so far the only significant studies only show damage to the myelin sheathing of very specific neurons.


Damage to the myelin sheathe sounds pretty devastating tbh. A lot of really debilitating diseases share that etiology.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 20, 2018)

BTW, guys, I'm tempted to get some cannabis oil
you know, I have Tourette syndrome and Parkinson
I'm pretty sure it will help a lot
But I'd like to know, do you think cannabis oil will be safer than joint?
I know smoking cannabis can cause problem for the brain...
But is it the same for oil?


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 20, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Damage to the myelin sheathe sounds pretty devastating tbh. A lot of really debilitating diseases share that etiology.


If I recall correctly its primarily in the amygdala, which is why stoners are lazy and ok with being bored.


----------



## cearp (Oct 21, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> BTW, guys, I'm tempted to get some cannabis oil
> you know, I have Tourette syndrome and Parkinson
> I'm pretty sure it will help a lot
> But I'd like to know, do you think cannabis oil will be safer than joint?
> ...


smoking and injesting have different breakdown methods in your body
last different times, give you the effects faster (smoking)
read up about it, it's your health, don't just listen to me 
any 'negative' aspects will occur from both.
if i was you, with the illnesses you said you have, i'd try it out.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 23, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> BTW, guys, I'm tempted to get some cannabis oil
> you know, I have Tourette syndrome and Parkinson
> I'm pretty sure it will help a lot
> But I'd like to know, do you think cannabis oil will be safer than joint?
> ...


Smoking it can cause lung cancer, same as cigarettes. Oils, tinctures, and edibles don't and have a full spectrum of effects. Smoking and other RoAs have very different effects. With smoking, the effects usually take about 5 minutes max to kick in, sometimes instantly. Edibles and other methods require a little more time to start working (sometimes hours). Honestly in your case I would start ultra small and work your way up to an acceptable dosage that seems to ease your symptoms. Be warned that the active ingredients in weed, namely THC, have been known to exacerbate latent or existing mental disorders like schizophrenia and psychosis. I recommend a strain with a high ratio of CBD vs THC. I know from experience that high-THC strains can take you to places you don't want to go, and are really only good if you have someone or something to distract you and keep your mind from wandering into subjects like your own mortality and the make-up of the universe. I personally don't touch the shit because I can't stop thinking about death while I'm on it and it's just not fun or medically beneficial to me anymore. It does help a lot of people though, and I do recommend trying it at least once to see if it helps.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 24, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Smoking it can cause lung cancer, same as cigarettes. Oils, tinctures, and edibles don't and have a full spectrum of effects. Smoking and other RoAs have very different effects. With smoking, the effects usually take about 5 minutes max to kick in, sometimes instantly. Edibles and other methods require a little more time to start working (sometimes hours). Honestly in your case I would start ultra small and work your way up to an acceptable dosage that seems to ease your symptoms. Be warned that the active ingredients in weed, namely THC, have been known to exacerbate latent or existing mental disorders like schizophrenia and psychosis. I recommend a strain with a high ratio of CBD vs THC. I know from experience that high-THC strains can take you to places you don't want to go, and are really only good if you have someone or something to distract you and keep your mind from wandering into subjects like your own mortality and the make-up of the universe. I personally don't touch the shit because I can't stop thinking about death while I'm on it and it's just not fun or medically beneficial to me anymore. It does help a lot of people though, and I do recommend trying it at least once to see if it helps.


thanks
I might try it, I first need the approuval of my neurologist
IDK, maybe my current medecine won't like it
For example, there are some painkiller I can't take because of them, so... you see...?

Also, I heard a lot about THC, but what the hell is CBD? I hear about it frequently lately


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 24, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> thanks
> I might try it, I first need the approuval of my neurologist
> IDK, maybe my current medecine won't like it
> For example, there are some painkiller I can't take because of them, so... you see...?
> ...


Wikipedia can explain it better than I can:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> thanks
> I might try it, I first need the approuval of my neurologist
> IDK, maybe my current medecine won't like it
> For example, there are some painkiller I can't take because of them, so... you see...?
> ...


I discussed this a bit in your blog post.  Different cannabinoids effect different people in different ways, but for the most part I think CBD is snake oil when isolated.  It needs other cannabinoids to interact with in order to get the full effects, and even then all you'll really get out of CBD is a calming effect and an anti-inflammatory effect.  It may not be that helpful for tourette's or parkinson's symptoms.  Again though, everyone's different, and you can certainly get CBD with trace amounts of THC that won't be enough to get you high.  At my dispensary we've got all the way up to 30:1 CBD:THC in tinctures, edibles and etc.  As @Subtle Demise said, start with small doses, and work your way up only if you're not getting the desired effect.


----------



## [^Blark^] (Oct 24, 2018)

Start small and work your way up I take 1-2 50mg  capsules daily and I'm a daily concentrate user (non-solventless) 5 mg may do for one user where as another needs 100mg + all depends on the person tho. I have been a card holder for over 4yrs+ just make sure what you are buying is tested and has lab results etc. 



Noctosphere said:


> thanks
> I might try it, I first need the approuval of my neurologist
> IDK, maybe my current medecine won't like it
> For example, there are some painkiller I can't take because of them, so... you see...?
> ...


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 24, 2018)

[^Blark^] said:


> Start small and work your way up I take 1-2 50mg  capsules daily and I'm a daily concentrate user (non-solventless) 5 mg may do for one user where as another needs 100mg + all depends on the person tho. I have been a card holder for over 4yrs+ just make sure what you are buying is tested and has lab results etc.


yea well, it's now legal in Canada, so I guess I won't get scrap if I go to SQDC (SQDC is a new government company that has monopoly of canabis market in Quebec)


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 24, 2018)

I want to know why English people don't refer to cigarettes as cigs.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I discussed this a bit in your blog post.  Different cannabinoids effect different people in different ways, but for the most part I think CBD is snake oil when isolated.  It needs other cannabinoids to interact with in order to get the full effects, and even then all you'll really get out of CBD is a calming effect and an anti-inflammatory effect.  It may not be that helpful for tourette's or parkinson's symptoms.  Again though, everyone's different, and you can certainly get CBD with trace amounts of THC that won't be enough to get you high.  At my dispensary we've got all the way up to 30:1 CBD:THC in tinctures, edibles and etc.  As @Subtle Demise said, start with small doses, and work your way up only if you're not getting the desired effect.


alright, but if I get it right, I should really smoke it to get better effect, right?
I hoped that oil would be better since it's concentrated...
Also, I prefer not smoking, especially now, with winter coming
When I see the father of my cousin in law smoking outside when it's like -25C -30C
No, I don't want to, and it's out of question that I'll smoke inside...


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> alright, but if I get it right, I should really smoke it to get better effect, right?
> I hoped that oil would be better since it's concentrated...
> Also, I prefer not smoking, especially now, with winter coming
> When I see the father of my cousin in law smoking outside when it's like -25C -30C
> No, I don't want to, and it's out of question that I'll smoke inside...


No, you don't have to smoke to get (minimal amounts of) THC any more than you do with CBD.  Edibles (gummies, chocolates, etc), pills, tinctures (drops you put under your tongue or into drinks), vaping, all of these are options.  There are more too, like topical lotions/salves, but those probably wouldn't do much for you personally.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 24, 2018)




----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


>


I like how the "life abuse" is like he did the most shit job ever crossing it out, so that you could read it better....


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


>


I remember when crime took a bite out of McGruff a some years back.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 25, 2018)

According to news at tv
90% of all cannabis product in Quebec are sold out
50% of all cannabis product in Canada are sold out

They say it might forces SQDC to close some of their store


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 25, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> According to news at tv
> 90% of all cannabis product in Quebec are sold out
> 50% of all cannabis product in Canada are sold out
> 
> They say it might forces SQDC to close some of their store


The main question to ask is "how!?" Is it because of regulations or did they just not anticipate high demand?


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 25, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> The main question to ask is "how!?" Is it because of regulations or did they just not anticipate high demand?


I think it's the latter
hey, there was very long queue at the front of the store everyday before the stores open
at every single store (those at montreal at least)

Plus, theres only 12 store open in Quebec


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 25, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> I think it's the latter
> hey, there was very long queue at the front of the store everyday before the stores open
> at every single store (those at montreal at least)
> 
> Plus, theres only 12 store open in Quebec


I think people just want to see what all the fuss is about. I'm sure the hype will die down soon. More stores should open soon as well.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 25, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I think people just want to see what all the fuss is about. I'm sure the hype will die down soon. More stores should open soon as well.


yea well, iirc, there is supposed to be 150 store open by the end of the year


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 26, 2018)

I fear that only a very small % of people have a legit medicinal use for this and the majority of people in favor of this just want some excuse to get high.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 26, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I fear that only a very small % of people have a legit medicinal use for this and the majority of people in favor of this just want some excuse to get high.


well, I doubt the cannabis for public and the one for sick peoples are taken from the same supply


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 26, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> well, I doubt the cannabis for public and the one for sick peoples are taken from the same supply



There's a difference? Cannabis is cannabis.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 26, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> There's a difference? Cannabis is cannabis.


I mean, there must be supply only for sick people
of course, the supple for public, recreative use surely is bigger
But still, I doubt both are from the same supply (maybe same source, but not same supply)


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 26, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> I mean, there must be supply only for sick people
> of course, the supple for public, recreative use surely is bigger
> But still, I doubt both are from the same supply (maybe same source, but not same supply)



People will still find a way and excuse to get stoned. I don't care if people get stoned, but don't be that moron who thinks they can drive a car when high.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 26, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> People will still find a way and excuse to get stoned. I don't care if people get stoned, but don't be that moron who thinks they can drive a car when high.


lol, I think we're not speaking about the same thing, there must be confusion^^
What I meant is that it might be a necessity for people who are sick

I'm not against recreative use, as long as those who NEED it still have acces to
As for driving after consuming it, don't worry, I'm not that stupid, I'm against


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 26, 2018)

Ech, let them get high. As long as it doesn't cause anyone any issues who cares?


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 26, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Ech, let them get high. As long as it doesn't cause anyone any issues who cares?


well, as i said previously, those who will smoke and drive are those who were already smoking illegaly
Those who weren't smoking because it was illegal won't drive, because... you know... it's still illegal


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 26, 2018)

Surely some this money from weed is going to your health services, right?


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 26, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Surely some this money from weed is going to your health services, right?


Idk, but i know a part of it goes in ads for prevention of danger of cannabis lol


----------



## cearp (Oct 26, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I fear that only a very small % of people have a legit medicinal use for this and the majority of people in favor of this just want some excuse to get high.


You don't need an excuse now. So there's nothing to fear!


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 26, 2018)

ok, now I'm against what I just saw at tv news
Apparently, cannabis sold for medical purpose is more expansinve than the one sold for recreative purpose...


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 26, 2018)

420 Blaze it!


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 26, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> The worst recorded physical case from smoking marijuana was wheezing and a cough.


I mean, you can still get lung cancer.... Just there are less things in it causeing the cancer, less != None....


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> I like how the "life abuse" is like he did the most shit job ever crossing it out, so that you could read it better....




--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
It looks like crime took a bite out of him

*McGruff the Crime Dog Actor Jailed for Pot, Grenade Launchers*

*Pot farm diagrams lead former 'McGruff' back to prison*


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 26, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> I mean, you can still get lung cancer.... Just there are less things in it causeing the cancer, less != None....


There's no evidence that marijuana causes lung cancer

https://www.verywellhealth.com/does-smoking-marijuana-cause-lung-cancer-2248991


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 26, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> There's no evidence that marijuana causes lung cancer
> 
> https://www.verywellhealth.com/does-smoking-marijuana-cause-lung-cancer-2248991


"Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals. There are 33 cancer-causing chemicals contained in marijuana. Marijuana smoke also deposits tar into the lungs. In fact, when equal amounts of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana deposits four times as much tar into the lungs. This is because marijuana joints are un-filtered and often more deeply inhaled than cigarettes."

Which is what I expected *BUT* it seems that THC may help make the tar less hazardous.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 26, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> "Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals. There are 33 cancer-causing chemicals contained in marijuana. Marijuana smoke also deposits tar into the lungs. In fact, when equal amounts of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana deposits four times as much tar into the lungs. This is because marijuana joints are un-filtered and often more deeply inhaled than cigarettes."
> 
> Which is what I expected *BUT* it seems that THC may help make the tar less hazardous.


I know nothing about that, but I guess the cannabis produced by the state will be more natural than the one made by criminal organisations
right?
I mean, Hell's surely put stuff in it to make more profit or something like that, no?


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 26, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> "Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals. There are 33 cancer-causing chemicals contained in marijuana. Marijuana smoke also deposits tar into the lungs. In fact, when equal amounts of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana deposits four times as much tar into the lungs. This is because marijuana joints are un-filtered and often more deeply inhaled than cigarettes."
> 
> Which is what I expected *BUT* it seems that THC may help make the tar less hazardous.


I should have said no "conclusive" evidence. The rates are so low that it's impossible to determine if cancer was caused by marijuana or other factors.

A lot of things can cause cancer. Car fumes, cooking meat at high temperatures, even sitting too much. There are so many cancer causing things in your life, that you probably dont even realize, that marijuana isnt even a factor.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 26, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> I should have said no "conclusive" evidence. The rates are so low that it's impossible to determine if cancer was caused by marijuana or other factors.
> 
> A lot of things can cause cancer. Car fumes, cooking meat at high temperatures, even sitting too much. There are so many cancer causing things in your life, that you probably dont even realize, that marijuana isnt even a factor.


I kinda understand, I been telling people in my neighborhood this about 5g lately....


----------



## medoli900 (Oct 26, 2018)

Anything that you burn causes lung cancer. This is due to the burning chemical reaction produce product that is hazardous when inhaled, including products that cause cancer. Weed is not less or more dangerous than burning tobacco.

What I really don't like a bout weed legalization is that smoking weed is now legal, which means that I may have to wear a gas mask soon, since I have a deadly allergy to weed.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 27, 2018)

medoli900 said:


> Anything that you burn causes lung cancer. This is due to the burning chemical reaction produce product that is hazardous when inhaled, including products that cause cancer. Weed is not less or more dangerous than burning tobacco.
> 
> What I really don't like a bout weed legalization is that smoking weed is now legal, which means that I may have to wear a gas mask soon, since I have a deadly allergy to weed.


Are you canadian?


----------



## medoli900 (Oct 27, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> Are you canadian?


Yes.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 27, 2018)

medoli900 said:


> Yes.


i see...


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 27, 2018)

medoli900 said:


> Anything that you burn causes lung cancer. This is due to the burning chemical reaction produce product that is hazardous when inhaled, including products that cause cancer. Weed is not less or more dangerous than burning tobacco.
> 
> What I really don't like a bout weed legalization is that smoking weed is now legal, which means that I may have to wear a gas mask soon, since I have a deadly allergy to weed.




Where do you guys get your information from? Most flamible materials are carbon based, which means carbon monoxide is produced when burning. Carbon monoxide can kill you from asphyxiation in minutes, that light years from being able to cause cancer. Some materials already have toxic chemicals in them and are released when burning, like plastic and rubber and such. These will kill you from organ damage, again, far before cancer could take hold.

Weed is far less dangerous than cigarettes. Cigarettes contain pesticides, formaldehyde, and all sorts of deadly shit.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Oct 27, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> I stopped reading right there.
> 
> It's the 21st century, you cannot escape it.
> Grow up and deal with it.


Not everyone likes to be intoxicated such as you, and how you put it. By your own weird mentality then none of us can escape alcohol.

You like being in a messed up state, that's your decision. Don't claim others can't ditch it.

Anyway, I love rewatching the Trailer Park Boys but smoke drugs? Nah, I'm staying away from alcohol so weed is the same case. Fun show to watch, would hate to be one of them, though.


----------



## medoli900 (Oct 27, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Where do you guys get your information from? Most flamible materials are carbon based, which means carbon monoxide is produced when burning. Carbon monoxide can kill you from asphyxiation in minutes, that light years from being able to cause cancer. Some materials already have toxic chemicals in them and are released when burning, like plastic and rubber and such. These will kill you from organ damage, again, far before cancer could take hold.
> 
> Weed is far less dangerous than cigarettes. Cigarettes contain pesticides, formaldehyde, and all sorts of deadly shit.


I said tobacco, not cigarette.
As for source:
http://firescope.caloes.ca.gov/spec...combustion_products_effect_on_life_safety.pdf

"Organic Irritants Pyrolysis and/or incomplete combustion of organic materials can lead to a wide variety of organic irritant species. Those considered to be the most important toxicologically are formaldehyde, unsaturated aldehydes (especially acrolein), and isocyanates (from nitrogen-containing polymers15). The first two result from partial oxidation of the carbon in the material. (Further oxidation leads to the formation of CO and then CO2.) Acrolein, in particular, has been demonstrated to be present in many fire atmospheres.16 It is also formed from the smoldering of all cellulosic materials and from the oxidative pyrolysis of polyethylenes."

Just the formaldehyde is enough to cause cancer. Of course this is OBVIOUSLY if the person survive after smoking, that should be obvious enough.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 27, 2018)

medoli900 said:


> I said tobacco, not cigarette.
> As for source:
> http://firescope.caloes.ca.gov/spec...combustion_products_effect_on_life_safety.pdf
> 
> ...


I assumed cigarettes because smoking unprocessed tobacco isnt exactly common.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 27, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> ok, now I'm against what I just saw at tv news
> Apparently, cannabis sold for medical purpose is more expansinve than the one sold for recreative purpose...


Medical stuff usually needs additional checks and certifications. Something you consume for fun needs far less. More effort, more money. What is wrong with that?


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 27, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Medical stuff usually needs additional checks and certifications. Something you consume for fun needs far less. More effort, more money. What is wrong with that?


Not only that, but since it's a "needful thing", it gets priced higher, because we all know how it works in this capitalist reality.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 29, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> I know nothing about that, but I guess the cannabis produced by the state will be more natural than the one made by criminal organisations
> right?
> I mean, Hell's surely put stuff in it to make more profit or something like that, no?


You mean cutting it like they do with other drugs? Wouldn't really work for weed honestly. Even ground up, marijuana plant matter is very easy to differentiate from other plant material, and nobody is buying or selling pre-ground shit anyway. Now if we're talking about cutting extracts like oils and wax and shatter and stuff like that, I can't think of anything that has a similar enough effect. Synthetic cannabinoids are expensive and illegal almost everywhere so you aren't saving any money there. The most you can do is dilute, but then your product is seen as poor quality, and people will move on to other dealers.

I also want to point out that the myth about weed being laced with harder drugs makes no sense from a business standpoint. The only time weed would be laced with something is if someone requested it that way, and you can be sure they're paying a premium for it. Something like Thai Stick that's apparently dipped in either opium or the runoff from heroin production. I guess if it came in contact with another substance, contamination is a possibility too, but it would be a trace amount, and the only way that would be a concern is if it was fentanyl or something, where the lethal dosage is measured in micrograms.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> There's no evidence that marijuana causes lung cancer
> 
> https://www.verywellhealth.com/does-smoking-marijuana-cause-lung-cancer-2248991


Are you for real? I posted a good source that claimed otherwise and you're still spreading dangerous lies.

Here's another one. This is an actual research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/




> Long term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.



So no. Stop telling people that smoking weed is 100% safe because it isn't. Shit like this is exactly why a lot of people are annoyed with potheads that treat weed like a miracle superpower herb with no negative sides at all.


----------



## horokeusama (Oct 29, 2018)

That's why canadians are always in the last place on Mario Kart 8 online


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 29, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Are you for real? I posted a good source that claimed otherwise and you're still spreading dangerous lies.
> 
> Here's another one. This is an actual research.
> 
> ...


I'm not a pothead, I dont smoke weed, and I'm actually a nurse.

Every study you guys post has stuff like this

"smoking histories and the custom of mixing cannabis with tobacco may have contributed to the risks observed".

There is also a rule to analytics. correlation does not imply causation. If I gathered data on all cancer patients and people that have ridden a bicycle, I could make assumptions that a high percentage of individuals that ride bicycles end up getting cancer.

Read these studies carefully, they tell you the data is inconclusive. It's not like research on cigarettes, were every chemical element has been observed and show cancer causing properties.

Give me a study where thc has been observed to cause damage to particular tissue, or other chemicals within marijuana have been observed to cause damage, then I will accept it. Like earlier in this thread where I posted that marijuana causes damage to myelin sheathing in certain parts of the brain.

There's a reason most doctors dont see marijuana as a huge risk factor. That's because these general data gathering studies are almost always inconclusive.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 29, 2018)

Enough guys


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Enough guys


Good job on deleting all the posts except the very first one he did, still flame. Clearly shows whose side you're on.

I'm not participating in any more serious discussions if the staff can just censor the side they don't agree with regardless of how much proof it's thrown to them, while not deleting inflammatory posts that help their side. Disgusting.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 29, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Good job on deleting all the posts except the very first one he did, still flame. Clearly shows whose side you're on.
> 
> I'm not participating in any more serious discussions if the staff can just censor the side they don't agree with regardless of how much proof it's thrown to them, while not deleting inflammatory posts that help their side. Disgusting.


Chill dude. It takes me a second to catch up when you guys are in the process of posting.



IP60 said:


> I don't get it man, you know hes wrong why delete the comments? let the record show what type of person he is.


It's off topic bickering.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Chill dude. It takes me a second to catch up when you guys are in the process of posting.
> 
> 
> It's off topic bickering.


No it's really not. I called him out for his fake research. He also has some sort of angry issue. 

You delete my comments? alright man censor the sppech


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 29, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Chill dude. It takes me a second to catch up when you guys are in the process of posting.
> 
> 
> It's off topic bickering.


Yet you're keeping the post where he says that I'm wrong.

We can never win with you potheads. We post data and facts all the time to counter your idiotic arguments but all you can do is get into fights and watch other backs.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



IP60 said:


> No it's really not. I called him out for his fake research.


Get some help.


EDIT: since I can still edit this post, let me just reply to @WeedZ



> The issue arises when people dont know how to read this information.



The issue arises when a manchild with an edgy avatar and one-liners in his profile lies about his job to prove a point and tries to shut one user down to win an argument. You're pathetic, man. You even have a list of "elite members" in your signature. Hop off the internet and into the unemployment building.


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 29, 2018)

Y'all need a fat spliff to relax, life is worth better than fighting over an internet forum because you didn't like what the other dude said.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 29, 2018)

IP60 said:


> No it's really not. I called him out for his fake research. He also has some sort of angry issue.
> 
> You delete my comments? alright man censor the sppech


It's not fake research, finding correlation can be a useful tool in data collecting. The issue arises when people dont know how to read this information. There are rules to reading the data just as there are collecting the data.


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 29, 2018)

IP60 said:


> The guy is literally just calling everyone who disagrees with his nonsense a pothead, even the mods, apparently we are "junkies" i haven't heard that term used for someone who smokes weed in a while, that's new.
> 
> I'd offer him a joint but i think he thinks he will die of stage 3 cancer.


I have a better idea. Ignore them.
Not with the ignore button, but by switching page and moving on.

As for myself, I may just wait since stores are out of stock around here lol.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Oct 29, 2018)

I use to care when I was 15 and thought everyone doing it was some junkie/stoner and was being constantly fed that it could ruin your life just as badly as meth or cocaine, and put as much tar in your body as 5 cigarettes.

But looking into it and seeing many people who smoked pot not acting like typical junkies/stoners cleared that up.

Nowadays, while I don't like it myself, I see no reason to complain about others using.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 29, 2018)

VinsCool said:


> Not only that, but since it's a "needful thing", it gets priced higher, because we all know how it works in this capitalist reality.


Depends on location more than anything.  In Colorado we have some areas where medical is way cheaper, and some areas where recreational is slightly cheaper.  Medical does usually have higher potency in most products though.  We can only sell 100mg (per package) edibles for recreational, on the medical side you can get 500mg or more.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 29, 2018)

How is this thread still going?


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 29, 2018)

Can't blame the thread, for people going off-topic or trolling.


----------



## Noctosphere (Nov 6, 2018)

Apparently, one of the reason why Quebec's cannabis store are sold out
is because drug dealers bought all their mechandises
And now, they are reselling it lol


----------



## Xzi (Nov 6, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> Apparently, one of the reason why Quebec's cannabis store are sold out
> is because drug dealers bought all their mechandises
> And now, they are reselling it lol


If so, those are some dumb drug dealers.  The only way anybody is going to be able to keep selling on the streets is by undercutting legal dispensaries, not buy from them and then charge more.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If so, those are some dumb drug dealers.  The only way anybody is going to be able to keep selling on the streets is by undercutting legal dispensaries, not buy from them and then charge more.


I don't know if I can quite get there.

If the dispensaries are limited in their supply (either through law or lack of a vetted supply) and demand is there then it could be possible to still make something of it* -- I am sure we have all seen things in south America or whatnot where supplies run low and prices shoot up relative to elsewhere. Couple that with a proper crackdown of illegal sources (you are no longer ruining fun but ensuring safety of your citizens too).

*long term, last hurrah or short term is a different discussion.

I don't know what regs there are for purchase there either -- back when California was doing the medical card thing such a thing could be brought up by employers, divorce courts... and this lack of oversight provided an in for some dealers that obviously were not bothered by such regulations.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 6, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I don't know if I can quite get there.
> 
> If the dispensaries are limited in their supply (either through law or lack of a vetted supply) and demand is there then it could be possible to still make something of it* -- I am sure we have all seen things in south America or whatnot where supplies run low and prices shoot up relative to elsewhere. Couple that with a proper crackdown of illegal sources (you are no longer ruining fun but ensuring safety of your citizens too).
> 
> ...


True, in the short term there is some profit to be made due to lack of supply, but it won't be long until production has caught up to demand.

As far as your medical card goes, I believe that information is supposed to be HIPAA protected in the states.  Even if somebody somehow found out about it, it's ridiculous that we would have such a bias toward people who use MMJ but not toward people who use prescribed opioids which cause far more impairment.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 6, 2018)

Recreational marijuana was on the Michigan ballot today. I voted yes and hope it passes, but my hopes aren't high, because most of the people at my polling place were like twice my age.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 6, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Recreational marijuana was on the Michigan ballot today. I voted yes and hope it passes, but my hopes aren't high, because most of the people at my polling place were like twice my age.


You'd be surprised how wide the consumer base for CBD and THC products has grown.  We sell to people middle-aged and older from every state every day.  We get the most money flowing in from Texas due largely to proximity and size, but Michigan definitely isn't under-represented at the dispensary.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 7, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You'd be surprised how wide the consumer base for CBD and THC products has grown.  We sell to people middle-aged and older from every state every day.  We get the most money flowing in from Texas due largely to proximity and size, but Michigan definitely isn't under-represented at the dispensary.


Not looking good so far, but this is apparently only 0.2% of the votes so we'll see what happens over the next few days I guess.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 7, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Not looking good so far, but this is apparently only 0.2% of the votes so we'll see what happens over the next few days I guess.
> View attachment 148856


It passed.  

https://themarijuanaherald.com/news/michigan-voters-legalize-marijuana/


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 7, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It passed.
> 
> https://themarijuanaherald.com/news/michigan-voters-legalize-marijuana/


Thank god for that! I think it will be a while until I can go to the weed shop and get a tincture, but the cops won't be arresting people for having it in their glove box anymore (At least not after a couple weeks have passed). 

Now if only we could get kratom out of the crosshairs. It causes less impairment than both weed and alcohol and is only responsible (not conclusivley, and usually mixed with true opioids and/or alcohol) for 44 deaths nationwide in 5 years. The Feds and other state boards don't like it because some of the alkaloids have an effect on the mu-opioid receptor. It causes a pronounced euphoria and extreme motiviation, however it doesn't effect the receptors that cause the heavy sedation and nodding associated with drugs like heroin. It's closer to a low dose of hydro- or oxycodone; an almost "speedy" feeling.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 7, 2018)

Xzi said:


> As far as your medical card goes, I believe that information is supposed to be HIPAA protected in the states.  Even if somebody somehow found out about it, it's ridiculous that we would have such a bias toward people who use MMJ but not toward people who use prescribed opioids which cause far more impairment.



https://www.goldbergjones-or.com/child-custody/marijuana-impacts-child-custody/
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/medical-marijuana-card-and-child-custody-634842.html (Ideally I would not link a question and answer but it was apparently answered by a lawyer and it was more the date I was concerned with).
http://www.thecannifornian.com/cann...ng-custody-issues-marijuana-see-hope-prop-64/
https://rightlawyers.com/rightlaw-p...custody-cases-attorney-stacy-rocheleau-warns/


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Recreational marijuana was on the Michigan ballot today. I voted yes and hope it passes, but my hopes aren't high, because most of the people at my polling place were like twice my age.




I'm 51 and if I lived in Michigan I would have voted "yes," and I don't smoke/use MJ at all.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2018)

Not err... 51 (not telling my age), but I would have also voted yes, despite not doing any drugs. I wonder how many non-smokers voted yes.


Xzi said:


> It passed.
> 
> https://themarijuanaherald.com/news/michigan-voters-legalize-marijuana/





> Permit retail sales of marijuana and edibles subject to a 10% tax, dedicated to implementation costs, clinical trials, schools, roads, and municipalities where marijuana businesses are located.


So, what exactly does this mean? The money will go directly to those places?


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 7, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Not err... 51 (not telling my age), but I would have also voted yes, despite not doing any drugs. I wonder how many non-smokers voted yes.
> 
> 
> So, what exactly does this mean? The money will go directly to those places?


Any sales tax collected from licensed facilities would probably be put in a separate fund that would be distributed to those services.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 8, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Not err... 51 (not telling my age)




It'll happen to you.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 11, 2019)

dinalee said:


> Hope one day to see medical marijuana legal at all the states (I never smoked usual THC containing weed, but my grandpa was prescribed medical cannabis to relieve bone pains and it helps him greatly). I also want to try CBD Oil , I would like to see it available at local stores, legally.


Was it Marinol? That is already legal in all 50 states.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2019)

Next up is magic mushrooms.  Denver is looking at becoming the first city to decriminalize, and Oregon is looking at becoming the first state to legalize.  Micro-doses of shrooms and/or ecstasy both seem to show a lot of promise for the treatment of depression, anxiety and PTSD.  I just wanna go on my annual trip without having to resort to buying it illegally, though.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 18, 2019)

MM is now legal in my state and they had their first sale a few days ago.


----------



## Roamin64 (Jan 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Next up is magic mushrooms.  Denver is looking at becoming the first city to decriminalize, and Oregon is looking at becoming the first state to legalize.  Micro-doses of shrooms and/or ecstasy both seem to show a lot of promise for the treatment of depression, anxiety and PTSD.  I just wanna go on my annual trip without having to resort to buying it illegally, though.



Both shrooms and ecstasy are real fun to use, but shrooms really make me feel generally better. Not that I am depressed or anything, but physically using shrooms kinda soothes my whole body. The stomach that's been following me around for years is always better for a few days after I used shrooms. I would love for Canada to at least decriminalize them and even better to legalize them.


----------



## fiis (Feb 9, 2019)

Wont affect me, weed does nothing for me when it's illegal wont change when it is legal. only thing thats going to change is that the people who stayed away in any capacity because of laws now are more inclined to get involved, as user or seller.


----------



## Attacker3 (Apr 6, 2020)

Bumping this thread to the top mainly for an update.

How well do you think the weed legislation has gone? So far I think it's been doing okay. The one thing killing them right now is taxes, but Alberta is thinking about waiving taxes for 5 years to let the industry grow a bit. So, how are you all liking it?


----------

