Well, well, the Liberal government has finally introduced legislation to regulate cannabis.
But as I’ve explained ad nauseam, regulation is prior to government intervention. The “free-for-all” market of farmers and vendors has proven effective for consumers. All the Liberals had to do was remove cannabis from the criminal code.
Complaining neighbours is a private property issue. “Smell” is a property issue. Driving under the influence is a property issue over road ownership and management.
But legalization is, apparently, the responsibility of government bureaus, as if only Canada Post could deliver mail effectively.
Liberals are bringing cannabis into the mainstream, but with all the problems of the mainstream.
Good luck with that. Only fools and newcomers buy overpriced government-approved strains regulated like a pharmaceutical rather than an agricultural product.
“Social sharing” clubs of personal growers and, perhaps, even provincially regulated co-ops of “craft producers,” will satisfy the sensibilities of many. But those of us outside of this “strict legal framework” will still face penalties.
BC Bud autonomy from Ottawa, especially over farmers and growers, should be of prime concern. Someone call Christy Clark’s office and notify her of the pristine election campaign opportunity over her opponent, NDP leader John Horgan. Or vice-versa. I don’t really care.
Cannabis still carries prison sentences. Police departments are rolling out more technology for roadside tests, including blood work, while the federal government plans to unveil a “robust” taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign on why drugs are bad, mmkay?
Normally, advertising is done in the market to attract customers. Governments like to forcibly extract wealth from people to promote themselves on how well of a job they’re doing. It’s arrogant and eerily reminiscent of the cult of personalities perpetuated by communist institutions.
Canadian teens smoke more cannabis than other Western teens due to a high number of factors. A concerted effort by the state to dispel teens of pot-use may be effective.
But who’s to say taxpayers obtain their return on “investment” when none of us are allowed to stop paying?
Kind of an important core measurement of any large-scale organization, no?
That end-users always have the option of ceasing consensual relations? We’re talking about adults and cannabis here.
Imprisoning people or forcing them to leave the country to discover alternative options is quite a radical position given the errors and excesses of the modern state. Prohibition being one injustice among many.
This “if you don’t like it, leave” argument is further complicated by neighbouring world states as well as Government-issued passports and restrictions on travel. Not to mention, with a few exceptions, worldwide cannabis prohibition.
When simply electing a government to legalize cannabis didn’t work, one really has to question the merits of the current democratic state.
Nevertheless, here we are at the beginning of prohibition 2.0, the all-holy First Reading by our Honourable Members of Parliament.
What a joke.