dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
12

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

EUS to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues

Re: Toking Tourists

said by elwoodblues:

I'd open a store the day after,of course I'd have to refrain from "sampling' the merchandise.

I think you would have an abundance of Q.C. applicants.

donoreo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON

donoreo

Premium Member

said by EUS:

said by elwoodblues:

I'd open a store the day after,of course I'd have to refrain from "sampling' the merchandise.

I think you would have an abundance of Q.C. applicants.

From what I hear the entire town of Hudson.

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

EUS

Premium Member

Ha ha, quality control, not quebecers, although now that I think of it, that would be true too.

FiReSTaRT
Premium Member
join:2010-02-26
Canada

FiReSTaRT

Premium Member

While I'm against the Fiberals in general, they are onto something here. What they're also neglecting to mention (so they don't rile up the police lobbies) is that there'd be significant police budget cuts and need for fewer cops if they stopped cracking down on grow ops other than in a tax collection role.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by FiReSTaRT:

While I'm against the Fiberals in general, they are onto something here. What they're also neglecting to mention (so they don't rile up the police lobbies) is that there'd be significant police budget cuts and need for fewer cops if they stopped cracking down on grow ops other than in a tax collection role.

I dunno about that. It would just be a re-allocation of funds since driving under the influence is still a crime (even if pot) as far as I know. But how would they test for that? Random blood tests, heh.

But yeah it would free up the courts and other resources.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to FiReSTaRT

Premium Member

to FiReSTaRT
said by FiReSTaRT:

While I'm against the Fiberals in general, they are onto something here.

The Liberals passed on their chance to do this under Jean Chretien (summer of 2003 was it?) so I'm not confident they'd be talking about this if they thought they had a serious chance at power again.

I'm all for it, but I've heard it from the "Fiberals" one too many times.

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

EUS to FiReSTaRT

Premium Member

to FiReSTaRT
There are too many very powerful vested interests to allow legalization.

FiReSTaRT
Premium Member
join:2010-02-26
Canada

FiReSTaRT to hm

Premium Member

to hm
said by hm :

I dunno about that. It would just be a re-allocation of funds since driving under the influence is still a crime (even if pot) as far as I know. But how would they test for that? Random blood tests, heh.

But yeah it would free up the courts and other resources.

Not everybody drives while under the influence of marihuana. You'd have a small number of hard-core idiots but it's the same as with the drunks. If we used actual impairment tests involving reflexes, memory and motor ability, many people who had a few puffs would pass with flying colors and many people of a certain age group that packs the polls and who haven't taken a single toke in their lives would fail it. That's why that one will never fly.
FiReSTaRT

FiReSTaRT to EUS

Premium Member

to EUS
said by EUS:

There are too many very powerful vested interests to allow legalization.

The biggest ones, in the order of appearance, being:

1) Organized crime
2) Law enforcement community
3) Those who derive income from incarceration (bigger factor south of the border where private prison operators are actively lobbying for tougher laws, mandatory sentencing and longer sentences)

koira
Hey Siri Walk Me
Premium Member
join:2004-02-16

koira to hm

Premium Member

to hm
said by hm :

said by FiReSTaRT:

While I'm against the Fiberals in general, they are onto something here. What they're also neglecting to mention (so they don't rile up the police lobbies) is that there'd be significant police budget cuts and need for fewer cops if they stopped cracking down on grow ops other than in a tax collection role.

I dunno about that. It would just be a re-allocation of funds since driving under the influence is still a crime (even if pot) as far as I know. But how would they test for that? Random blood tests, heh.

But yeah it would free up the courts and other resources.

how would they test ? Well for starters just have to listen for the ones with stereo cranked up to eleven.