420 News

[Nbadan]

http://www.gigcity.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cannabis-flag-crowds-560x420.jpg

Canada to introduce legislation in 2017 to legalize sale of marijuana
Source: Washington Post
April 20 at 4:03 PM



OTTAWA — The Canadian government announced Wednesday that it will introduce legislation next year to decriminalize and legalize the sale of marijuana, making Canada the first G7 country to permit widespread use of the substance.

The announcement was made by Canada’s health minister, Jane Philpott, at a U.N. drug conference in New York. It follows through on a promise made during Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s successful election campaign last fall.

Philpott said details of the legislation are being worked out, but she vowed that the government “will keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals.”

With the Liberals holding a majority in the House of Commons, the marijuana legislation is likely to pass. The path toward the legalization of marijuana is the latest in a string of policy announcements from the 44-year-old Trudeau that have moved Canada to the left after a decade of Conservative Party rule, including last week’s unveiling of legislation to permit assisted suicide.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/canada-to-introduce-legislation-in-2017-to-legalize-sale-of-marijuana/2016/04/20/85d375a0-0715-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html

You hear that? Its the dominoes falling on the war on drugs...

[baseline bum]

I'm curious what kind of legalization model people would want. Full legalization so companies can advertise it and compete to lower prices? That seems like it would create a lot more wake and bake style stoners. Or would people want it heavily taxed like tobacco to keep demand in check? That wouldn't really affect the Saturday night smoker considering just how little it takes to get a nice buzz with how good weed is now. But taxing it heavily would kill a lot of the incentive to be a daily smoker. I'd still keep it illegal to import (Mexican weed is shit anyways) so the cartels couldn't undercut American prices if we went with the high taxing model.

[Nbadan]

I'm curious what kind of legalization model people would want. Full legalization so companies can advertise it and compete to lower prices? That seems like it would create a lot more wake and bake style stoners.

I don't see swinging that far, but something along the cigarette model seems inevitable....the drug cartels are already losing billions to legal pot in the US...turf wars over a smaller piece of the pie....seems like a slam dunk...

[boutons_deux]

"cartels couldn't undercut American prices if we went with the high taxing model"

Ever heard of "cigarette boats", "rum runners"?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm curious what kind of legalization model people would want. Full legalization so companies can advertise it and compete to lower prices? That seems like it would create a lot more wake and bake style stoners. Or would people want it heavily taxed like tobacco to keep demand in check? That wouldn't really affect the Saturday night smoker considering just how little it takes to get a nice buzz with how good weed is now. But taxing it heavily would kill a lot of the incentive to be a daily smoker. I'd still keep it illegal to import (Mexican weed is shit anyways) so the cartels couldn't undercut American prices if we went with the high taxing model.

Seeing that you can grow, cure, and then smoke the shit yourself, I don't see how that would be the case if it's legalized. Comparing it to other manufactured goods like tobacco and alcohol doesn't make sense.

I also like how you categorize consumers into two groups and use the categories to marginalize.

[CosmicCowboy]

Seeing that you can grow, cure, and then smoke the shit yourself, I don't see how that would be the case if it's legalized. Comparing it to other manufactured goods like tobacco and alcohol doesn't make sense.

I also like how you categorize consumers into two groups and use the categories to marginalize.

The model where they legalize use but don't legalize sale makes it crazy dangerous to grow your own. Cops use "green" weight with stems, leaves etc. when plants are involved and one healthy plant can get you into the "dealer" weight range as far as prosecution goes.

If it was legal I would definitely be growing my own.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The model where they legalize use but don't legalize sale makes it crazy dangerous to grow your own. Cops use "green" weight with stems, leaves etc. when plants are involved and one healthy plant can get you into the "dealer" weight range as far as prosecution goes.

If it was legal I would definitely be growing my own.

Out here in CA with a card you are allowed to grow a certain amount of plants so weight isn't an issue. The model you are talking about would suck.

[Blake]

Of course the Prime Minister name would be Philpott

[baseline bum]

I also like how you categorize consumers into two groups and use the categories to marginalize.

I categorize into daily users and occasional users. What's the problem there? I don't like the idea of weed becoming so cheap that a lot more people would start becoming daily smokers. I don't think most people would grow their own, but if they want to for personal use that's their own business.

[boutons_deux]

I categorize into daily users and occasional users. What's the problem there? I don't like the idea of weed becoming so cheap that a lot more people would start becoming daily smokers. I don't think most people would grow their own, but if they want to for personal use that's their own business.

The Netherland's and Portugal's liberalization has not caused a huge increase, or any, in mj use.

People who want to get illegal mj today, do get it. People who don't want it, won't get it just because it legal and cheaper.

It's a lie that legalization of mj would cause a huge increase in usage, destroy lives, destroy America. That's self-serving bullshit from BigAlcohol, BigPoliceState, BigBondsmen, the PIC.

[baseline bum]

The Netherland's and Portugal's liberalization has not caused a huge increase, or any, in mj use.

People who want to get illegal mj today, do get it. People who don't want it, won't get it just because it legal and cheaper.

It's a lie that legalization of mj would cause a huge increase in usage, destroy lives, destroy America. That's self-serving bullshit from BigAlcohol, BigPoliceState, BigBondsmen, the PIC.

I never said it would destroy America you fucking dumbass.

[baseline bum]

On the other hand if there was good research indicating a sizable fraction of people would replace heavy alcohol usage with heavy weed usage, I'd be all for a full legalization model that would bring prices way down, considering how much alcoholism costs this nation and how weed doesn't make people violent like heavy alcohol consumption does.

[boutons_deux]

I never said it would destroy America you fucking dumbass.
I didn't say you did. GFY

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I categorize into daily users and occasional users. What's the problem there? I don't like the idea of weed becoming so cheap that a lot more people would start becoming daily smokers. I don't think most people would grow their own, but if they want to for personal use that's their own business.

I don't get too much into right or wrong in regards to political opinion. The problem is you are taxing it categorically to discourage behavior that you don't like. Marginalizing the people who practice said behaviors. That you tell us what your goal is underscores it.

Unfortunately your category includes cancer patients and other sympathetic figures that use pot medicinally every day.

[baseline bum]

I don't get too much into right or wrong in regards to political opinion. The problem is you are taxing it categorically to discourage behavior that you don't like. Marginalizing the people who practice said behaviors. That you tell us what your goal is underscores it.

Unfortunately your category includes cancer patients and other sympathetic figures that use pot medicinally every day.

What's your solution? Would you make it 100% legal so Joe Camel could market it to kids?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's your solution? Would you make it 100% legal so Joe Camel could market it to kids?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be regulated. I'm not saying it shouldn't be taxed.

I'm just saying that raising the price to suppress demand won't do what you want it to and is attacking Nixon's windmills.

[boutons_deux]

taxing tobacco does cause a small decrease in consumption, but tobacco kills 100K per year (although Yoni said no proof that tobacco causes lung cancer).

marijuana shouldn't be taxed any differently than another recreational drug, alcohol. Alcohol is pathogenic.

People aren't prohibited from brewing their own beer or wine, so same permission with mj.

[baseline bum]

taxing tobacco does cause a small decrease in consumption, but tobacco kills 100K per year (although Yoni said no proof that tobacco causes lung cancer).

Small decrease? Rates of tobacco smoking have gone way down in this country due to the taxing.

[boutons_deux]

due to the taxing.

evidence that tax was the cause?

[CosmicCowboy]

evidence that tax was the cause?

Smoking is a habit that tends to start early in life. Four in five adult smokers started before they were 18; only one in 100 started after age 26. A primary reason that cigarette taxes are so effective is that young people are particularly sensitive to price increases. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) summarizes the existing research and concludes that a 10 percent increase in cigarette prices will lead people under age 18 to reduce their smoking by 5-15 percent. Among adults over 18, CBO concludes, the decline would be 3-7 percent (see Figure 1). Taking the mid-point of the estimate for youth suggests that each 1 percent price increase leads to roughly a 1 percent decrease in youth tobacco consumption. (Approximately half of the decline in smoking is due to fewer smokers (people either quitting or not starting to smoke), while the other half is due to fewer cigarettes consumed by people who smoke.)

[baseline bum]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be regulated. I'm not saying it shouldn't be taxed.

I'm just saying that raising the price to suppress demand won't do what you want it to and is attacking Nixon's windmills.

I'm not talking so much about jacking up price as I am about maintaining price so as to not have a big influx of people getting into bad relationships with the drug from it being so cheap. Though it's certainly not in the same class as alcohol, methamphetamine, cocaine, codeine, etc for the damage it can cause abusers, and not addictive like tobacco or any of the aforementioned drugs (weed is the easiest thing in the world to just quit cold turkey).

[boutons_deux]

"There is a general consensus among policymakers that raising tobacco taxes reduces cigarette consumption.

However, evidence that tobacco taxes reduce adult smoking is relatively sparse.

In this paper, we extend the literature in two ways: using data from the Current Population Survey Tobacco Use Supplements we focus on recent, large tax changes, which provide the best opportunity to empirically observe a response in cigarette consumption, and employ a novel paired difference-in-differences technique to estimate the association between tax increases and cigarette consumption.

Estimates indicate that, for adults, the association between cigarette taxes and either smoking participation or smoking intensity is negative, small and not usually statistically significant.

Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326



THE FEDERAL CIGARETTE TAX IS MUCH LOWER THAN HISTORICAL LEVELS

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0092.pdf


http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/economics/infographics/

The real price of a pack is 2.50+ times higher than 1970.

The decline in cigarette consumption has been due to widespread knowledge of tobacco's health disaster, social condemnation of smokers, not due to taxation.

[baseline bum]

Smoking is a habit that tends to start early in life. Four in five adult smokers started before they were 18; only one in 100 started after age 26. A primary reason that cigarette taxes are so effective is that young people are particularly sensitive to price increases. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) summarizes the existing research and concludes that a 10 percent increase in cigarette prices will lead people under age 18 to reduce their smoking by 5-15 percent. Among adults over 18, CBO concludes, the decline would be 3-7 percent (see Figure 1). Taking the mid-point of the estimate for youth suggests that each 1 percent price increase leads to roughly a 1 percent decrease in youth tobacco consumption. (Approximately half of the decline in smoking is due to fewer smokers (people either quitting or not starting to smoke), while the other half is due to fewer cigarettes consumed by people who smoke.)

That faggot boo didn't even read your post :lol

[boutons_deux]

That faggot boo didn't even read your post :lol

You Lie

[baseline bum]

You Lie

gfym