Discussion in 'Cannabis Legal and Security Issues' started by skip, Oct 18, 2010.
Who do you think should "control" cannabis?
I think a control board should control it. Like a Crown corporation like we have here in Canada. A corporation owned and operated at State level (US). That way different states can have different laws and ways of controlling it based upon their individual needs.
In Ontario we have the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario). It's run by the Ontario Provincial government. Each province has their own Province controlled Crown corporation.
"Canadian Crown corporations are enterprises owned by the federal government of Canada (the Queen in Right of Canada), one of Canada's provincial governments (the Queen in right of a province) or one of the territorial governments. Crown corporations have a long standing presence in the country and have been instrumental in the formation of the state. They are involved in everything from the distribution, use, and price of certain goods and services to energy development, resource extraction, public transportation, cultural promotion, and property management."
I think they should be State owned and operated.
I would like to be able to say nobody, but that is not feasible. For the simple reason that there must be some controls. Be that age or quantity or distribution. Unfortunately we all know that most people do not control themselves.
I would instead prefer to see an independent group that would be carefully chosen and government should pay for salaries. The group would be diverse so that the decisions of that group or board would be far more equitable for all. It should consist of people who understand cannabis rather than fear it.
whoever was polite enough to roll it
I would like a federal agency that could oversee and inspect all for sale growing operations. Though this obviously would have to take place in a world where weed is legal and regulated at the federal level.
I voted the people and the government since they are technically the same
If there were no controls to begin with people would have never taken it out of hand. People would have gotten as high as they wanted and then put the weed down and do something else, but with it regulated at all people still see it as a "bad" thing. People see a "bad" thing and want to rebel so they take their use out of hand, smoke to be cool and with that pressure comes the pressure of smoking more and more of the plant instead of how much it takes to get you yourself satisfied, ie: "come on bro lets pack another bowl" where as if it were never deemed immoral to smoke it people WOULD in fact regulate themselves.
Also I'm not too big on the idea of WeedCorp and marijuana as a party commodity
Maybe you don't understand how federal agencies work.
First order would be to convene a panel to study the feasibility of appointing a study group. Then, the Study Group would research the viability of recommending the collection of data as a means of selecting the members of the research committee.
10 years and $6 billion later we now have our research committee whose first order of business will be to appoint sub-committees for the purpose of recommending various strains of cannabis to be used in animal testing (poor rats). Of course the whole process will be stalled here for 5 years due to law suits by animal rights groups.
Finally, after attorneys for the rats agree to the configuration of the mazes, room temperature, color of lighting, dosages of marijuana and selection of munchies, we now begin the bipartisan selection of testing sites. 5 years later a 25,000 page Bill will be introduced and testing begins.
Now, with testing underway, the EPD is sure to file a restraining order claiming further study needs to be conducted to determine whether or not rat shit containing marijuana is carcinogenic. So, another 5 year legal battle.
When this whole process is complete my grandchildren will be too old to enjoy a good smoke and we will have spent $2 trillion.
There are a number of people who will never regulate themselves. That is a given. Just as with all substances. Once it is legalized, in 20 years, it will be considered to be as bad as alcohol or tobacco or any other substance rather than the forbidden substance. It will still be viewed by many as immoral just as those other substances I mentioned are also viewed by many and yet are still legal.
Your statement that if it is legal and accepted then the abuse goes away by those who over use, for a lack of a better term, historically does not hold. Those who over use or abuse any substance just do.
The controls need to be there for those who are minors. I would never support any bill for this that did not limit minors. I believe that every adult should have the choice about this but I do not think that minors should.
The people most harmful to the legalization of cannabis are the stereotype users. Those who do take it to extremes. Unfortunately those are the ones who are often heard and visible. Equate it to a brewery asking for prohibition to end and those that show up and protest are falling down drunk. Those who already use cannabis responsibly are not the ones who are heard. They instead are the ones who are just living a normal life and enjoy cannabis. They are working, raising families, paying taxes and members of society that are considered mainstream, not stoners.
I fully support that it is legal to use and to grow for personal use. I support that it is legally grown by controlled operations for medicinal use so that the quality and safety is met.
More importantly it needs to be decriminalized.
Marijuana has a way of regulating it's own consumption, it's called sleep.
I think the idea of anybody controlling a plant that can be grown both inside a house and outside in a garden is absolutely ludicrous.
the government doesn't control my basil plant or my thyme or my rosemary or any other herb growing in my herb garden. Pot should be treated the same way.
Realistically speaking however, that'll never be the case.
If it's legalized, in any manner, it's going to be controlled. It will never be considered "just a plant".
Unfortunate, but that's greed for you.
alcohol is just a fluid..
Yet people are allowed to make alcohol in their own home.
The alliance wants the DEA to back off its threat so the V.A. can offer vets medical marijuana:
i dont know bout canada, but down here u can't.. if by alcohol u mean ethanol. u can make beer and wine, but not hard liquor stuff like at
It is the same here. Wine and beer are allowed to be made for personal consumption. You also can not sell what you are allowed to make.
Big difference is that both alcohol and tobacco can be very physiologically addictive substances. That is not the case with cannabis. There is/can be a psychological dependence issue with it, but it is not physiologically addictive.
Everything else you say I completely agree with. :2thumbsup:
I agree that there should be restrictions similar to alcohol concerning age, driving and working under the influence.
But it should be completely legal to grow and posses by the private citizen.
Medicinal cannabis should be regulated, but not in the same fashion as other pharmaceuticals, but in order to help standardize dosage and strains for specific treatments. That should also be something that could be overseen by the government, but implemented and monitored by those farming it for the medical community.
After all, there has already been a couple of decades of research done by the clandestine growers concerning that very thing.
Reality is, it's only going to be legalized if the state, city and ultimately federal governments can tax it in some fashion.
Great, more SinTax
you're right. I was going to expand on what I said and include the fact that complete lack of control can only happen in an ideal world, but I just didn't really feel like getting into it at the time lol...
I guess I would say the people should control it, although I'm not really sure what the OP means by that....
But what I mean by that is people should be allowed to grow up to a certain amount for personal consumption. Any marijuana sold in medical dispenseries and coffeeshops should be taxed much in the way that cigarettes and alcohol are taxed. The tax revenue that could be generated from legal marijuana is astounding.
Ideally I would like to see regulations in place to protect the consumer. Ideally, I would like those regulations allow only local and reputable growers to sell to dispenseries, but that goes against this free market thing america has been trying to perfect (and failing quite miserably, might i add). I would really hate to see huge corporations begin growing and manufacturing marijuana; look at how well that works in the tobacco industry... Which is also why I think implementing regulations to protect the consumer would really only work in an ideal world. The government has done absolutely nothing to protect tobacco consumers; if proper regulations were in place then ingredients like arsenic would never be allowed to be added to cigarettes.
I think allowing growing for personal use is really the best way to go; a lot of tax revenue might be lost that way but it also prevents tobacco companies or other corporations from mass-producing and destroying such a beautiful plant by putting in additives that are harmful and addictive.
But see, if the people are in control of it, it can't be taxed. We'd also have no regulations in place to protect people if the people were in control of it.
If you have no corporation or level of government in control of it, you don't have tax dollars being generated and you have no regulation.
That's why I think a crown corporation would be best. They would be owned and operated by the state, the tax dollars would go back into the state, the laws would be set in place by the corporation to be specific to that states "needs", it would create more jobs in each state rather than a few large farms and production sites in a few states, and each state would prosper from it rather than seeing prosperity only on a federal level.
To get it off the ground too it would be much more ideal, as some states would want to legalize before others. If it was a matter settled by each individual state, some could legalize and run it, those who don't want to legalize wouldn't have to. If it was a federal issue, there would be and could be way too much backlash from conservative states who wish to not legalize. If there was enough outcry, they'd ruin it for the states who do wish to legalize.
It's best to leave it up to each state.
Separate names with a comma.