|
Helsing posted:I'm not worried that it "won't come to fruition". Rather I'm worried that weed laws and regulation are going to become more restrictive than before because there will now be a powerful corporate lobby with a vested interest in defending their profits.  It's not enough they allow it, they have to assume complete control and custody of it to stop the thousands of people currently growing and smoking or vaping or whatever they do with the stuff from hurting their widdle selves.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not worried that it "won't come to fruition". Rather I'm worried that weed laws and regulation are going to become more restrictive than before because there will now be a powerful corporate lobby with a vested interest in defending their profits. This is exactly what's being telegraphed, and with the interest in using the LCBO (or LCBO model) here in Ontario for distribution, it's all but guaranteed even without onerous licencing restrictions on production. None of this should be surprising however. What's unclear is why this was handed to federal newbie Bill Blair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
That's exactly what is about to happen, because the goddamned dispensaries are too nearsighted to realize that they have a lot of power if they would only unite and start messaging correctly. It's PROFOUNDLY frustrating from up close, I assure you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:That's exactly what is about to happen, because the goddamned dispensaries are too nearsighted to realize that they have a lot of power if they would only unite and start messaging correctly. So if the dispensaries aren't the powerful corporate lobby, who is?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
What's even worse is that once the marijuana industry is in place it will nestle its ugly corporate coils into the guts of all three parties and find all kinds of ways to integrate itself into the system and within a few years it will be almost impossible to most politicos to imagine changing the system. The Liberals will throw together something terrible that is custom designed to benefit whoever does enough backroom lobbying and then we're all going to be stuck with the lovely results, and meanwhile a bunch of clueless liberals and international observers will crow about our progressive and farsighted government making a "historic" reform to drug laws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:So if the dispensaries aren't the powerful corporate lobby, who is? provincial liquor control boards, probably. "We already have the infrastructure in place just go through us there's no downsides to this plan whatsoever  "
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:provincial liquor control boards, probably. Them, Monsanto, big alcohol companies, and the existing large scale corporate "medical" grow ops that have been built in anticipation of legalization... take a loving number.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
And probably a tobacco company or three. Wheeeee! This is going to be a fiasco and I feel really bad for you, Frank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:...existing large scale corporate "medical" grow ops that have been built in anticipation of legalization That who's mentioned here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ex-colleague-will-lobby-mp-bill-blair-to-restrict-field-of-pot-growers/article28102506/ using one of Blair's former cronies to lobby for production licencing restrictions. flakeloaf posted:And probably a tobacco company or three. Wheeeee! TBF, if his folks weren't drafting federal and provincial legislation for just this event over a year ago, they didn't have a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:This is exactly what's being telegraphed, and with the interest in using the LCBO (or LCBO model) here in Ontario for distribution, it's all but guaranteed even without onerous licencing restrictions on production. None of this should be surprising however. At least it'll create good union jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
THC posted:At least it'll create good union jobs. I'm down with that. I'm sure the OLP will find some way to privatize it though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
I can't wait for the pot section in Food & Drink magazine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:And probably a tobacco company or three. Wheeeee! I just got word that CAMCD is going to call an emergency meeting and invite every Vancouver dispensary and grow op to join a political coalition, which I may or may not have a big role in. Beyond my desire for paid employment as a weed lobbyist, this is a great first step- they have a LOT of money and could be quite a powerful force if they'd only get their poo poo together long enough to see the existential threat. I will liveblog the meeting on Friday, I promise. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
more like dICK posted:I can't wait for the pot section in Food & Drink magazine. Enjoy some BC Bud with your No.99 Collection Chardonnay and St. Clair River Fish Special
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:I just got word that CAMCD is going to call an emergency meeting and invite every Vancouver dispensary and grow op to join a political coalition, which I may or may not have a big role in. Beyond my desire for paid employment as a weed lobbyist, this is a great first step- they have a LOT of money and could be quite a powerful force if they'd only get their poo poo together long enough to see the existential threat. Make sure that your official job title is "Weedlord".
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
more like dICK posted:I can't wait for the pot section in Food & Drink magazine. Sense and Sinsemilla. Franks Happy Place posted:I will liveblog the meeting on Friday, I promise. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:I can't figure out your angle. Should Trudeau and his family....not be permitted to spend their own salaries to go on vacation? Be forced to spend it in Thunder Bay? Be limited to $100/night? No goddamit I'm not a socialist. If he wants to spend 10% of his gross salary on a vacation, yes do it in fact let's all do it. He's setting the lead, being the Joneses and hopefully getting those Porsche SUV driving Torontonian #WelcomeRefugee tweeters to spend more. It motivates me to work harder, get more money and live the Canadian dream of escaping Canada for 10 days in the winter. It's great to know that $35,000 vacations are within grasp in Canada, I think that would be sweet. This is the best thing Trudeau's done for the economy since taking office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:I'm down with that. I'm sure the OLP will find some way to privatize it though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Trudeau was already personally pretty wealthy, who cares where he goes. Aren't leaders of nations supposed to take opulent vacations and instragram their excesses for us all to look at with awe? I'm pretty sure that's how I picture all politicians, sort of like McKay and the mil-helicopter rides around town, or Bev Oda's $13 OJ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
As long as it's his own money who cares
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
PEI is in the midst of another big debate about abortion access, or lack thereof. Finally a rights group is launching a constitutional challenge against the PEI government.quote:The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is strongly supporting the constitutional legal challenge that will be launched in 90 days against the P.E.I. provincial government by a local pro-choice group. Good for them. Naturally this debate has brought out the very worst in people. Another issue we're all familiar with bringing out the worst in people is the refugee issue. Well we've reached peak internet comment with this gem conflating the two: quote:For every baby aborted, our demographics go down resulting in having to bring in more immigrants, refugees ,etc to keep the economy going and this has resulted in making us a minorty in our own country. We do not have as many babies as people do from other countries,eg Moslems do not abort their babies,nor should they. Nor should we, there is always a way, better to put baby up for adoption. Pro Choice is Pro Murder,and thou shalt not murder. How has life been for you since the abortion or abortions in some cases. Free will is not Free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:No goddamit I'm not a socialist. If he wants to spend 10% of his gross salary on a vacation, yes do it in fact let's all do it. He's setting the lead, being the Joneses and hopefully getting those Porsche SUV driving Torontonian #WelcomeRefugee tweeters to spend more. It motivates me to work harder, get more money and live the Canadian dream of escaping Canada for 10 days in the winter. It's great to know that $35,000 vacations are within grasp in Canada, I think that would be sweet. This is the best thing Trudeau's done for the economy since taking office. Lol I know you hate the liberals and trudeau and there's a lot of good reasons for doing so, but come the gently caress on man. this just seems petty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The Liberals will throw together something terrible that is custom designed to benefit whoever does enough backroom lobbying and then we're all going to be stuck with the lovely results, and meanwhile a bunch of clueless liberals and international observers will crow about our progressive and farsighted government making a "historic" reform to drug laws. Do you prefer the status quo over legalization? If not, isn't it kinda weird to condemn a necessary and useful reform out of hand because it isn't done to your taste? Sausage-making is integral to parliamentary politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Do you prefer the status quo over legalization? That's impossible to answer without knowing what "legalization" will entail. The primary benefit of changing the law would be to reduce the power of the police. Right now marijuana is a sort of catch-all excuse for police officers to search or harass people, especially youths, minorities, etc. A secondary benefit is that we could abolish a cruel and arbitrary law that punishes people for a harmless personal activity. If legalization fails to achieve either of those goals and actually makes it harder to achieve those goals by creating a new special interest that will lobby the government to implement the most awful, corporate controlled system imaginable then I would say it's bad and should be opposed. My personal preference would be for the government to simply decriminalize marijuana possession, up to and including owning a few small plants for personally growing your own. Some basic prohibitions on where you can smoke would also be reasonable, something that lands between restrictions on cigarettes and on alcohol use in public (my personal preference would be that it be easier to use in public than alcohol, but frankly that is up to the citizens of individual communities to decide for themselves via their elected representatives). As for your comment on sausage making... That's really the big problem with Canada right now, isn't it? The people who run this country have started adulterating the sausage with so much tainted meat that we're all choking on it. Any society as rich as our own can survive a couple decades of incompetence or corruption among the leadership classes, but we're long over due for a reform movement that throws some of the bums out and puts the fear of God into the rest of them. We are way way way too permissive toward our rotten institutions and incompetent, corrupt and dishonest leaders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Do you prefer the status quo over legalization? Keeping the status quo implies that a later government could legalize it in a better way. Legalizing it but putting in place a bad system creates a level of institutional stickiness that makes it very difficult to reform in the future because of all the vested interests in play. Saying this as if it's a binary choice between a) legalization and b) the status quo is a false dichotomy because there are absolutely certain means of legalization that would be worse than the status quo. For example, let's say the Liberals decided to legalize marijuana but give a 99-year contract for the exclusive production and sale of marijuana to Wal-Mart. Only Wal-Mart is allowed to produce marijuana and only Wal-Mart is allowed to sell it to Canadians. Anyone cultivating or selling marijuana outside Wal-Mart is liable to heavy fines and even jail time for violating this government-instituted monopoly. But Wal-Mart is allowed to sell it to whoever they want in whatever way they want--to children, with exorbitant prices, give free samples next to the Doritos aisle, however they choose. This is a method of legalization that would absolutely be worse than the status quo, but would also put in place a series of legal and institutional barriers to any further reform by any governments for the next century. Don't be obtuse. What you're saying is like saying "Well, any voting reform is better than First Past the Post so we should all just be thankful for our perpetual Liberal governments because hey, at least they followed through with voting reform."
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Keeping the status quo implies that a later government could legalize it in a better way. That's a really terrible use of the word "implies," first of all. But the basis of the rest of your post is that you believe Liberals to be so terrible that you'd rather leave the status quo through the current government and God knows how many Conservative governments to get to an NDP government that actually cares about this issue and has somehow gotten to power while being immune to lobbying pressures. As a milquetoast liberal, I would take the milquetoast Liberals. vyelkin posted:Don't be obtuse. What you're saying is like saying "Well, any voting reform is better than First Past the Post so we should all just be thankful for our perpetual Liberal governments because hey, at least they followed through with voting reform." I think IRV would, in fact, be better than FPTP, though not ideal. Still, contrary to your "stickiness" remark, I think that if Liberals changed the voting system, the next government elected would have a much easier time changing the voting system, since the precedent would have been set.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
No half-measures, Walter.Helsing posted:As for your comment on sausage making... That's really the big problem with Canada right now, isn't it? The people who run this country have started adulterating the sausage with so much tainted meat that we're all choking on it. Any society as rich as our own can survive a couple decades of incompetence or corruption among the leadership classes, but we're long over due for a reform movement that throws some of the bums out and puts the fear of God into the rest of them. We are way way way too permissive toward our rotten institutions and incompetent, corrupt and dishonest leaders. The problem as I see it is that the conservative and liberal revolution has shifted such that traditional state institutions are already at risk under their stewardship. That puts the left on the defensive and forces "us" to defend institutions regardless of their use or competence. Usually institutions can be reformed, but when opposing views are that we should dismantle everything, well that creates a whole new dynamic. Oddly enough I could probably point a finger at the New Left for feeding this political momentum, as that movement was one of the first that was largely critical of state institutions in general. This ties into the whole discussion about multiculturalism and being forced into a defensive posture because the debate tends to boil down between keeping it or jettisoning it, rather than approaching it as an institution that has had a positive influence (I think) on Canadian society but has long since become inadequate in addressing modern racial and economic injustice. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jan 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Lol I know you hate the liberals and trudeau and there's a lot of good reasons for doing so, but come the gently caress on man. this just seems petty. I'm not being ironic or sarcastic. I think it is a good thing about Trudeau that he is willing to spend lavishly on frivolous things. People love Trudeau. People will do what people they love do. The people will also spend their money on frivolous things, from the heart outwards cause everything is gonna be ok. My stocks go up and Canada's impending economic crash is postponed another couple of years. It's good. I don't know how many different ways I can say that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:That's a really terrible use of the word "implies," first of all. But the basis of the rest of your post is that you believe Liberals to be so terrible that you'd rather leave the status quo through the current government and God knows how many Conservative governments to get to an NDP government that actually cares about this issue and has somehow gotten to power while being immune to lobbying pressures. As a milquetoast liberal, I would take the milquetoast Liberals. Not necessarily. It could also mean the current Liberal government facing pressure against a bad way of legalization deciding to do a better one instead. Most of the indications we've gotten so far from the federal Liberals (like putting Bill Blair in charge) and provincial governments (like shutting down existing independent dispensaries in favour of instituting a government or privately run marijuana monopoly) are that they are adopting a bad form of legalization. As Frank's Happy Place demonstrated, it's likely that at least some part of this stems from a lack of knowledge, involvement, and policy-making capacity both in government and in any involved interest groups. As that capacity develops, it's likely we will have the option of instituting a better form of legalization but, crucially, not if a worse form has already been instituted. No government is going to spend significant political capital trying to rewrite its own laws. My preferred form of legalization is not for us to wait a million years until the NDP fluke their way into power, but rather for pressure over time from the public, from knowledgeable third parties, and from the development of capacities within the government and the public service to force the Liberals into a less bad form of legalization, not for them to rush through it with Bill loving Blair in charge just because they want to get through a major election promise as quickly as possible without worrying about the consequences. quote:I think IRV would, in fact, be better than FPTP, though not ideal. Still, contrary to your "stickiness" remark, I think that if Liberals changed the voting system, the next government elected would have a much easier time changing the voting system, since the precedent would have been set. Yes, it would set a precedent, but it's also a serious and weighty policy proposal and I doubt our political parties want to fight every single election from now until the end of time on the issue of electoral reform, the same way I think that if the Liberals legalize marijuana then the Conservatives won't run their next campaign on a promise of re-criminalizing it. Once the battle's been fought, it's more typical for political elites (outside of insane Tea Party types) to move on and fight a new battle rather than just go back and forth on the same issue for every election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:I think it is a good thing about Trudeau that he is willing to spend lavishly on frivolous things. People love Trudeau. People will do what people they love do. The people will also spend their money on frivolous things, from the heart outwards cause everything is gonna be ok. My stocks go up and Canada's impending economic crash is postponed another couple of years. It's good. I don't know how many different ways I can say that. Now there's no need for sarcasm Ikantski, tell us what you really think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:I'm not being ironic or sarcastic. I think it is a good thing about Trudeau that he is willing to spend lavishly on frivolous things. People love Trudeau. People will do what people they love do. The people will also spend their money on frivolous things, from the heart outwards cause everything is gonna be ok. My stocks go up and Canada's impending economic crash is postponed another couple of years. It's good. I don't know how many different ways I can say that. The Tory doth protest too much, methinks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Oh man I just figured out the idiots behind the cable stayed bridge disaster are the same company building the new bridge in Victoria that's gone like 200% over budget and had to be repeatedly cut back and re-designed and had all its steel re-done because the lowest bidder in china hosed up twice. God drat what a boondoggle. The previous mayor and council weren't corrupt, just really really stupid and easily wowed into creating a "legacy project".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Oh man I just figured out the idiots behind the cable stayed bridge disaster are the same company building the new bridge in Victoria that's gone like 200% over budget and had to be repeatedly cut back and re-designed and had all its steel re-done because the lowest bidder in china hosed up twice. God drat what a boondoggle. The previous mayor and council weren't corrupt, just really really stupid and easily wowed into creating a "legacy project". Are they finally replacing the ancient Johnson street bridge, wow
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
I would not be surprised to discover there's a bit of personnel overlap between these bridge projects. All of which are: 1. hideously expensive, 2. white, 3. cable stayed, 4. car bridges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
quote:B.C. rejects Kinder Morgan’s bid to expand Trans Mountain pipeline Remember when Dix lost the election because he rejected this on a whim? Lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Remember when Dix lost the election because he rejected this on a whim? Lol. I remember Dix losing the election, but for more reasons than this
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
gently caress the bcndp until the end of time
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
It's gonna be approved regardless so they're just making this symbolic gesture to scoop up some Green voters
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jan 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:I remember Dix losing the election, but for more reasons than this Yep, but this was a notable event during the election that played exactly into the "NDP are against everything" stereotype that I think is a primary reason people don't vote for them after "the 90s" and "fast ferries." This contrasted starkly with the BC Liberal's hugely ambitious LNG scheme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
An LNG scheme still going ahead, it seems, despite the product being worth about the same as soda pop right now. They just approved a new terminal up north.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 05:15
|
|
