Canada to announce marijuana will be legal by July 1, 2018 | Hacker News Reader

Canada to announce marijuana will be legal by July 1, 2018

cbc.ca

237 pointspaglia_s171 comments

I'm not a user but have a question for people with more experience. I recently had a few very bad experiences at the movie theatre where (a) the entire outside area smelled of what I think was weed, and (b) the person next to us in a very full theatre reeked of it. We had to leave because it was a really bad odour. Is Toronto going a bit overboard in the short term while people are experimenting or is this just the way it is going to be? I.e. we stop going to movies, etc. I'm not being judgemental .. want to try to be open about it. What does one do in this situation?

I see drunk people from time to time too but I can avoid them fairly easily. MJ seems harder to avoid. I also had a run in at a beach recently where I was there to watch the sunset. The MJ user also seemed to be there for that reason .. I just moved away. Harder to do in a packed theatre.

If San Francisco is anything to go by, in the short term people will go wild and smoke it everywhere because the science says it is "less harmful than cigarettes". I'm hoping that post-legalization someone will do a study that shows "marijuana still makes your lungs black and gives you lung cancer", and we can update all the anti-smoking campaigns marketed at teenagers to cover both marijuana and cigarettes.

> marijuana still makes your lungs black and gives you lung cancer

What? While smoking anything isn't great for your lungs, there's no evidence that marijuana causes lung cancer.

How could it possibly not? Smoking anything deposits an array of ash and tar products into your body, and I have yet to observe a studied combustion byproduct that doesn't cause cancer. Also, smoking anything increases risk of infection, which in turn will cause immune stress and necessarily an increase in cancer risk.

Personally I think the damage done to individual people when aggregated in sum is below the noise when compared with pollution from industrial sources, environmental pollution from consumer products, known-cancerous foods such as bacon, hamburgers, and beer, etc. So it's no reason to outlaw marijuana. But people who partake should not be fooling themselves into thinking it's healthy.

It has health benefits. Using drops / edible products removes the issue with released carcinogens from burning.

Regular dosing levels.

A recreational pot user may smoke a couple joints a week vs a pack a day of cigarettes.

or see this http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuan...

Many people vape, ie extract thc with heat, not fire. I would guess this also reduces carcinogens.

Out of my field, so can't offer an explanation, but it appears smoking MJ is not associated with lung cancer or reduced forced vital capacity (a measure of respiratory capability).

Here's a recent (2016) review: [1] Nature, apparently not paywalled. Lung cancer is the topic in the paragraph immediately before the "Discussion" section.

[1] http://www.nature.com/articles/npjpcrm201671

Basically, smoke is composed of two components, gases and particulate solids. The gases leave your lungs when you exhale, while some of the solids remain, and cause cancer and other bad things. The concentration of particulate solids is many orders of magnitude greater in tobacco smoke than marijuana smoke, which is why the smell of tobacco smoke will persist in an enclosed space for years, while the smell of marijuana smoke completely dissipates after only a few hours.

Chain smokers can also smoke 2 packs a day every day. While holding a job. You just can't do that level of marijuana.

I used to know people whose response to that declaration would be "Challenge Accepted!"

You can always use a vaporizer. Or butter. Or anything with fat.

One variable not mentioned is the number chemicals used in growing tobacco - herbicides, pesticides, etc. - and the chemicals added the the filters of cigarettes. The latter issue is easy to avoid and most home growers try to minimize the use of the former if they use them at all.

There is ample evidence that smoking weed is bad for the health of the respiratory system. However, it is far less statistically likely to cause lung cancer than tabacco smoking. There are a few citations in this thread that should be able back up the claim.

Smoking isn't healthy and no-one should be making such claims. Other respiratory health issues are just as deadly as cancer.

you're oversimplifying. the quantity and quality of the smoke is hugely important. cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke are qualitatively different, and the typical amount consumed by cannabis vs. tobacco smokers is a very different quantity (in that tobacco smokers typically consume tens or even hundreds of times more mass of tobacco per day than cannabis smokers do).

certainly any kind of inhaled smoke can cause issues for your lungs, but conflating the cancer risk of daily habitual tobacco smoking (very high) with the cancer risk of daily habitual cannabis smoking (probably present, but not yet known how much more risk it causes) is a distortion.

There is evidence that cannabinoids inhibit tumor growth and kill cancer cells.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/ca...

I'm all for legalizing it. Having grown up with people around me who smoked, it always seemed reasonable to legalize use and have production and distribution heavily regulated and taxed (as tobacco).

What I find a bit ironic is that in the face of prop 65, CA doesn't make much of MJ use.

Several studies in this area have already concluded such.

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and...

Your link is good and people should read it, but your statement severely mischaracterizes it. There is certainly no link mentioned on that page regarding a connection between marijuana smoke and lung cancer (which is what the grandparent comment stipulated)

Not very different than tobacco which stays for much longer than MJ. Looks like the person next to you smoked right before entering.

So many people get their med cards because of a severe phobia of boring movies.

Couldn't you have simply changed seats? The odour issue isn't any worse than cigarettes (it's arguably much more pleasant smell).

Re:Toronto, there have been literally a million casual users here for years (as there are in any major city). I don't expect a major shift in behaviour. If anything, easier access to edibles and vaporizers will likely reduce the frequency of smelling it.

More pleasant? Cigarette smoke is awful but there is a reason it's called skunk and it's not because it smells nice.

It was a unique situation - we spent a lot of effort to get a baby sitter. Movie theatre was completely full. We just ended up leaving and got a refund.

> Couldn't you have simply changed seats? The odour issue isn't any worse than cigarettes

I highly disagree, at least in strength. I can't smell tobacco when outside just because my people are smoking indoors and have their windows open, I can with weed.

It's all subjective. In the nice summer weather I can't open my windows because all my neighbors smoke so my home just ends up reeking of disgusting cigarette smoke. It'd be equally as gross if it was weed.

So they have to change their behavior, and sacrifice their seating preference to accommodate someone's drug habit?

Maybe the other guy could change his? Or not bother people in a public setting?

> The odour issue isn't any worse than cigarettes (it's arguably much more pleasant smell).

What if someone disagrees with your subjective opinion on this?

Does marijuana smells stronger and worse than tobacco and cinemas' popcorn?

By the way, this is part of why I don't understand why people still go to cinemas, crowded, noisy, smelly places to watch a movie that you could watch I the comfort of your home!

I hate the popcorn stink.

Watching a movie at home is so much nicer, as my sofa is so comfy and especially since they made the big screen pointless by ruining it with bad 3D.

Well, sometimes, you're a big fan of a movie and really want to see it. I was really into World War Z so I went and saw it when it came out in theaters, the first night. Other times your friends all want to go see Star Wars together, or some other friends and I went to see John Wick 2 the night it came out.

Sure, for the most part I don't care about going to the theater, most movies suck anyway. But socializing is a thing and watching a movie on the couch just doesn't compare to being in a dark theater with the screen filling your entire field of view and feeling the rumble from the speakers.

I understand about movies being released early in cinemas, but that's artificial. If everybody stopped going to the cinema, they'd release movie online/DVD/whatever.

> socializing is a thing

Surely you don't talk while the movie's on! And if you like to drink/eat while socialising, all cinemas I've ever been to have worse and more expensive drinks and food than any bar/restaurant/home.

Socialising doesn't have to mean conversation. I almost never see movies in theatres but when I do I love going with friends, just for the little moments, hearing each other laugh or react at particular parts, when we turn to each other and go "WOAAAH!" or "Did you see that?" and then we go back to watching.

We bring our own food and drinks.

And sure I could do that at home but then I'd have to buy a screen or a projector, make sure my place is tidy, etc.

1. The experience.

2. Not everyone has a nice entertainment system in their home, if your TV isn't good or the sound isn't good or you got a DVD instead of Blu Ray or you had to stream but have crappy internet (etc).

3. If you don't control the TV you have to watch whatever is on (parents/teens fighting over the the only TV). Maybe less common now but not everyone has multiple TVs.

4. It forces me to carve out the time to watch/finish the movie because I don't get to just pause it and get distracted.

I go if I want to see the movie badly (and only on a specific day when they reduce ticket prices). I also like the gigantic screen and loud noise. I don't usually remember a movie by the time it's out of the cinema and so never remember to watch it later.

1. the experience is exactly what the parent poster complained about, the smell of other people, but I'd add rude people (talking, standing, walking during the movie), the wait before the movie, trying to get out of the parking like at the same time as everybody else etc...

2. no big TV: true, although chances are that the electrical consumption delta between your old and a newer TV would pay for the newer TV in a year. Also, I don't care about cool/artistic images, I only care about the story told by the movie, but for people who are into that, this is a valid point, and probably the only one really.

3. idk, on the other hand, I ended liking movies I would have never watched myself, but did because my spouse/kids wanted to watch it.

4. you might want to read about focus, meditation, etc...

5. I keep a list of movies, every time somebody tells me about a good movie I haven't seen, I write it down. It's way better than endlessly wonder "what should we watch tonight?" or watch what advertiser tells us we should watch.

#2 and #3 really don't make sense any more. If you can't afford a $100-200 TV, then how the heck do you afford $20+ tickets? The TV will pay for itself very quickly. TVs are dirt cheap these days, and the "small" ones are not much more than $100. (I put "small" in quotes because that's for a 32" screen, which when I was young was considered a fairly large screen.) And if you can't find easy access to that movie, then just watch another. Basically you're saying that cinemas are for people with exceedingly poor impulse control.

As for #4, I can only "force" my bladder so much. At home, I can pause and take a bathroom break; I can't do that at the cinema.

As for the "loud noise", deafeningly loud noises are bad for your hearing. At home, I can set the volume to an appropriate and comfortable level.

Legalization has led to more non-smoked products on the market (e.g. chocolate bars). There are many people who don't smoke but do enjoy marijuana. Someone should do a study on this, but my bet would be that legalization would lead to more non-smoked consumption. Maybe the government could even incentivize those products by giving them a lower tax rate?

True, and more and more people are turning away from smoking and towards vaporising

My personal opinion is a two part solution

1. Ensure private establishments can establish restrictions on all forms of smoking. Then they could establish designated 'smokers corners' far away from entrances and ventilation equipment (as often seen now around hospitals which ban smoking).

2. Handle the person-next-to-you situation the same as I would now with anyone whose behavior or presence was disturbing my experience. I would inform the staff of the situation and that it's ruining my experience and ask them to handle it. If they decline, ask for a refund and leave. Don't go back to that theatre -- vote with your money!

Problem 2 gets tricky IMO. So you don't like the smell of someone who was smoking and would ask for a refund over it. What if you don't like their BO, what if they wear a ton of perfume and it smells? You can prevent smoking on the grounds, prevent noticeably intoxicated people from entering, but how do you handle smell?

Thats what refunds are for. If an appropriate accommodation can't be made, I see no problem with management issuing a refund. (I would come back and try again, but if the establishment has a chronic problem, I would probably give up after a couple of tries. That would be a management problem for them to deal with.)

I've always wanted to carry around a jar of rotting fish because "it's a habit I enjoy." Everyone around just has to deal with it because it's my right. I'll stand with my rotting fish jar in the smoking area if I have to. Yes, that's how I feel about smoking in public.

re: 2

what would you have the staff do? presumably the other person also paid for their ticket and is equally entitled to stay in the theater. where would you draw the line with offensive odors, for that matter? would it be reasonable to make the same request if it was B.O.? farts? their perfume?

Toronto has stunk like weed for years. It was pretty common for the elevators in my condo buildings to stink like it. Walking down sidewalks, etc. My wife is from Australia and use to comment on it all the time. I hate the smell but was just use to it.

I think whats interesting is that you'll find a lot of MJ users who have been conditioned to thinking the smell is pleasant. Makes sense if you think about it -- every time they're around that odor, their dopamine receptors are firing.

To the MJ users out there, take this as constructive criticism. Not everyone finds the smell appealing. Just like not everyone finds the smell of cigarettes appealing. Find a place to smoke away from entrances of buildings and other places nonsmokers are unable to avoid, and freshen up after partaking.

Businesses like the movie theater should create designated areas for smokers. As far as the smell that sticks with the person, that's something much more difficult to police, it isn't a crime to smell bad.

I don't like the smell of Cheetos (which is legal), but I don't fight with people that eats it on a bus/airplane (although it makes me angry).

What I mean is that we should get in an agreement good for everyone, not the common patronizing discourse of non-smokers been right, smokers wrong.

The smell of Cheetos will never have influence on your health. Smoke does.

Eating Cheetos influences your health, and being around smoke influences your health. I don't think smelling Cheetos on your breath, or smelling smoke in someone's clothes does.

The smell of marijuana will never have influence on your health. Eat cheetos does.

Its a courtesy thing, not a right vs wrong thing. If its a common complaint that my Cheetos smell bad, I'm going to avoid eating them in confined spaces or only around other people eating Cheetos. I'm also not going to go around telling everyone their Cheetos smell bad, but if someone constructively tells me that everyone hates the smell of my Cheetos, I'm going to acknowledge their complaint and be mindful of it when eating Cheetos moving forward.

Exactly! And lot of people think this way about marijuana, too. And a lot more don't think this same way in both situations. How to fix it?

your language use is problematic, in my opinion. "conditioned to thinking..." implies that you have some objective, irrefutable notion of the truth and that people that disagree with you are delusional due to psychological conditioning.

this is just subjective stuff. I like the smell and taste of limburger cheese and durian fruit. other people tell me it makes them want to gag and vomit. some people like the way Beyonce's music sounds. It makes me want to leave the room. it's subjective. you don't need to make a bogus argument about dopamine receptors to notice that.

You can argue the specifics of my language all you want, I'm merely noticing a phenomenon and stating an explanation that makes sense to me.

For what it's worth I find cigarette smokers to smell as equally awful as someone who reeks of weed. In cold weather, for some reason, they smell particularly worse. Sitting next to someone who's just smoked on the train is downright disgusting. I share your dilemma but I already deal with it everyday today. There's one reason I'm glad for vaping: it smells way better than cigarettes.

My wife has it worse: cigarette smoke is a migraine trigger for her if she has to be around it for a while.

As a smoker who tries really hard to be conscious of those around him, I can definitely relate to the cold weather thing! I can notice it on myself even, and it drives me nuts. I have no idea what causes it, but I am quite glad that Saskatchewan is thawing out and I have another 6 months before the double-bad-smell comes back.

I've always wondered what it was. Does cold air carry the smell better? Is it the humidity and the cold weather is incidental? It also seems to change the character of the smell too; I notice it's even more stale smelling than it usually is.

When I smoked I would keep my hands much closer to myself in the winter(since I was cold standing outside like an idiot). So the smoke would definitely have more of a chance to waft over my body.

The reason is probably flowers (cannabis) versus leaves (tobacco)

Medical marijuana user here, next time if you feel comfortable recommend to the user they grab a can of Ozium before going to public venues.

It completely takes the smell out and replaces with a lovely lemon smell.

I use this at work as well as in public venues and it keeps the marijuana odor from disturbing the public (at least I have stopped getting looks and the occasional nose wiggle, as well as my parents who don't smoke have told me how the marijuana smell doesn't seem to be there anymore when I visit).

I do apologize most of the users I know are respectful about how they enter the public while taking their medication.

Is there any real, peer-reviewed evidence that marijuana has any positive medical effects -- i.e., that it can be used "medically" to treat any disease?

I don't have an answer for your problem. As it seems fairly identical to someone who reeks of tobacco. I'm not positive there is much you can do about that in a packed theater.

As someone who does use the drug, I would be surprised if smoking will still be as common when full legalization exists. Concentrated and edible forms of the drug are very popular in legal states. These are both my preferred method of consumption. Neither of which would cause the scenario you were subject to.

Also, that person that reeked does not sound like a courteous person. I make every attempt possible to ensure no one even knows I'm using marijuana in the parking lot prior to the movies.

They'll probably restrict where and when you can consume it like they do with alcohol and tobacco (no drinking on the street, no smoking anywhere with a non-smoking sign, etc.)

I see many comments here about the health and social effects of smoking marijuana and there's of course a very valid point in each of those discussions - smoking (anything) is not good for your lungs and smoking around unsuspecting non-smokers is disrespectful (and gets them high, because weed smoke is active even in the air!).

But there's another angle that I'm curious about: the mentality shift that it will generate in society as more and more people start using the herb - for recreation, medication or as an industrial plant.

It's a very powerful plant, people have been using it for thousands of years, because it grows everywhere and has lots of industrial uses.

And of course we've all been indirectly influenced by it: by listening to the music, lyrics, books or movies created by artists who were high.

It's a great companion for both the consumption and production of all types of entertainment, from videos to video games, design and even coding !

So in a way it's even more useful today than it has ever been, which is why, sooner or later it will get legalised in a lot more places.

Like so many things, if abused, It's addictive and makes people lazy and demotivated, but the value it brings to its users ( and indirectly to the huge information and entertainment (and food!) industry) is quite high :)

I'm just curious how will society change after, say, 50 years of legal weed ? Will we still be trying to fight wars or will everyone just chill down, smoke the herb and play their sitars in peace ? :)

"It's a great companion for both the consumption and production of all types of entertainment, from videos to video games, design and even coding !"

The most uncharitable view of all of this?

I presume it's a very convenient method to keep the dirty unemployed masses placid. Free weed and videogames. Yay.

I mean... opiates, alcohol and benzos are pretty popular you know?

With continuing automation and globalization further devaluing the work of the lower class, I don't have a problem with this. The social and physical effects of cannabis addiction are much lower than other addictions like cigarettes, alcohol, and opiates. If it leads to a higher quality of life for the poor while not negatively impacting our economy, who cares?

"If it leads to a higher quality of life for the poor while not negatively impacting our economy, who cares?"

The 'higher quality of life' is a drugged lack of mental anguish. I'm on the fence if it's good or bad.

There's nothing inherently bad about a lack of mental anguish (how could there be), and being poor does not automatically mean you're laboring under some mental anguish. There is, in fact, nothing more wrong with smoking the occasional joint than there is with having a beer or a cup of coffee.

People do drugs. Some of them have substance abuse problems, but cannabis has inarguably fewer social consequences than alcohol. Cannabis is simply not a public health issue, mental or otherwise, and if you have moral misgivings about people being happy or making money then you may want to examine those, or at least elucidate them.

"if you have moral misgivings about people being happy or making money then you may want to examine those, or at least elucidate them."

I was following on my original half-joking comment that weed could be viewed as a way to pacify the masses instead of fixing the societal problems that induce malcontent.

I have no problem with people abating their personal pain with drugs. I do have a problem with this as a social policy - i.e. instead of focusing on building healthier communities people would be just given drugs. Which, actually, is kind of happening already if you look at the opiate and antidepressant use in the USA.

If society's rules are making people miserable the correct long term solution is not more drugs but a better society.

The hole in your logic is that you have the idea that drugs are taken because people feel badly, when in fact humans simply have a natural preference for altered mental states. Also, the vast majority of human cultures condone the use of some recreational drug, and no one is "just giving" anybody anything.

If you want to talk about social policy, it's quite clear that the actual 'opiate of the masses' is alcohol, and you may recall that Prohibition failed. If what you're talking about is not a return to Prohibition then it's fairly useless to try to imply that cannabis has anything like the social problems of alcohol. You're rationalizing your morality and trying to say "people should only do drugs I approve of". We've tried Puritanism. That it is a hopeless model for society is precisely why cannabis is being legalized now.

There is not a reasoned argument for cannabis prohibition, and thinking otherwise represents a flaw in reasoning.

> Free weed and videogames. Yay.

Yes, exactly. Keep everyone occupied or they'll start looking for entertainment elsewhere.

But it's not as bad as it sounds - computers and weed go very well together, so some of those people will also create stuff, which is good, right ?

In fact, looking at the number of programming languages and libraries and all the games (like GTA 5), something tells me some people been toking...

>I presume it's a very convenient method to keep the dirty unemployed masses placid. Free weed and videogames. Yay.

It is better than free internet/facebook/mobile phones and spending time by watching cat videos and reading 'deep stuff' written by fellow plebs in Reddit and Hackernews...

Watching trashy Youtube and goofing off reading Reddit and HN are some of my favorite things to do when I'm high.

The first change you're already seeing, and will see more of, is that people won't actually smoke it. Smoking joints especially, is the product of prohibition. It used to be that cannabis was mostly taken in extracts orally, at least in the developed world in modern times. Even when smoked, it was typically some form of hand-rolled hashish like 'Charas'.

Now you have various methods of extracting the desirable substances from the plant, and then either eat them, take them sublingually, volatilize ("vaporize") them. I don't really see much of a long-term future in smoking anything.

I can't guess as to the cultural impacts beyond that, although I suspect that it will be a boon for people struggling with various forms of pain and addiction. In the latter case especially, when you see someone kick pills and use cannabis to stay off them... it's an obvious "less harmful" choice.

I'd guess that Rx sleep aids will die off for most as well.

I'd love to know more about the history of the joint. I was always under the impression that it was closely linked to the rise of cigarettes in western cultures as the preferred method of taking tobacco. the joint is just a cannabis version of a cigarette.

was it the cigarette culture of the west that gave rise to the joint? were there other factors involved? what were the most prevalent methods of ingestion prior to joints?

In terms of smoking, pipes and hookahs have been the strong preference, but of course prohibition made having that kind of obvious paraphernalia difficult or impossible. By contrast, in a time when a lot of people were rolling their own cigarettes, a joint with half-pot half-tobacco was truly very stealthy. You could make it with a little grass so you didn't have to buy much or have much on you, and if you had to ditch it then it was no big loss. When you were done, nothing was left, but ashes and memories.

In terms of extracts, that's an even bigger case of "don't want to be caught with that on me!" as well as issues of knowledge being lost, and the fact that extracting any amount requires growing a large amount... so again the law is a factor. Joints really aren't ideal, except for stealth (in a time when most smoked), and certainly they're less efficient than a pipe, hookah, or bong. Efficiency doesn't matter as much as not going to jail though, and especially if you only had a bit of grass to mix with tobacco, it wasn't a concern.

The last thing, that ties all of this together is how difficult it became to grow cannabis in the US, and the associations with racial and social issues. Over time, marijuana (and heroin) were intentionally associated with hippies and black people- "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." (John Ehrlichman) -and as a result complex social dynamics evolved that we still see remnants of today.

I don't think smoking will go away completely, the effects are noticeably different than vaping and edibles. Agree that in the US, it seems everywhere it is legalized non-smoke options become more popular.

I agree, but I think that vaping of concentrates, edibles, and sub-lingual preparations are the biggest in the next decade or two. Now that people with degrees can work in this space without fear for their freedom, lives, and careers, interesting things are emerging. Cryogenic removal of trichome heads, then fractional distillation of the oils with steam and CO2. The result is that you can isolate individual terpene profiles from a given strain, separate from the THC bearing oil, and the CBD bearing crystals!

I think it might just end up as one of those things we all have in the medicine cabinet, in various forms.

> smoking around unsuspecting non-smokers is disrespectful (and gets them high, because weed smoke is active even in the air!).

disrespectful, ok, I can agree with that. second-hand smoke (of any kind) is a type of highly local air pollution and it's bad manners to smoke (anything) in an inappropriate spot.

however, are you serious about second-hand high? I feel like this is a destructive myth and I'm really surprised to see it being promulgated on hacker news.

> are you serious about second-hand high?

Of course ! I've experienced it myself many times. You won't get a 'real' stoned kind of high, but you're getting a healthy micro dose if you're sitting right next to someone who smokes a joint. (Ok, for better results you have to hold the smoke in for a while).

Second hand high is 100% a real thing.

Absolutely it's a thing. At the more extreme end you have "hotboxing", i.e. trapping a lot of the smoke in a confined space, like a car. If you sat in the passenger seat of a car and didn't smoke, and I did, and we had all the windows rolled up, you would definitely get a bit of a high.

Outside in a well ventilated area it should be a non-issue, though again I'd recommend extreme care in not involuntarily exposing people.

You often end up with copious amounts of smoke that doesn't get inhaled when smoking with a joint or another device that is continuously burning the plant material, and your lungs are only so efficient at absorbing the vaporized THC in the smoke.

You can definitely get a bit of the effects by hanging out with smokers, and you can get high by being in a confined space with them.

>But the provinces will have the right to decide how the marijuana is distributed and sold. Provincial governments will also have the right to set price.

I don't look forward to the potential outcome of this. Most provinces have long been saddled with alcohol monopolies that keep prices quite high, particularly when compared to neighbouring US states. I can easily see provinces setting up similar, monopolized retail systems for weed.

Canada already has a huge black market in untaxed cigarettes, and if provinces are not careful with prices/taxes, the already-existing black market in marijuana will live on.

the legitimate market will still have to compete with the black market. Many of my friends in BC prefer going to dispensaries because of the variety and consistency of the products as well as convenience vs. meeting your dealer and buying whatever he has. I also think the legitimate grow ops are going to end up being a lot more efficient because they won't have to make any effort hiding from authorities.

I can never find sympathy for people who complain about high alcohol tax in Canada. Is this something that really affects your quality of life? Or is it more of personal inconvenience? Alcohol taxes violate vertical equity. And they should. Lower income individuals should not be encouraged to purchase more alcohol, since they are more likely to be vulnerable to the negative social, mental and physical effects of alcohol consumption. Reducing alcohol tax leads to a greater burden on the healthcare system.

> I can never find sympathy for people who complain about high alcohol tax in Canada.

To be fair, the OP to didn't mention anything about taxes. The high taxes on alcohol have to be paid irrespective of private or public distribution channels. The OP is more guilty of generalizing from ON to the rest of the country when it comes to public distribution channels.

I second the idea alcohol should be expensive, I don't much care if the Delta is due to tax or monopoly profiteering by the province -- I'm not sure I can tell the difference tbh, the latter is a de facto tax.

The government monopoly in Ontario runs advertising campaigns, sales, and loyalty programs to encourage people to buy more booze.

It's a sleazy regressive tax program, not a health program to reduce consumption.

In Ontario the profiteering is not by the province for the Beer Store. That's a monopoly owned by the beer companies themselves. So it's not a de facto tax.

>The OP is more guilty of generalizing from ON to the rest of the country when it comes to public distribution channels.

Am I? You realize that most provinces have monopoly retail system, right? Even here in Quebec, while we can purchase beer at grocery stores (something Ontario only recently allowed, from my understanding, and then only in limited amounts), we still can't buy good wine or any spirits anywhere but the SAQ.

>I can never find sympathy for people who complain about high alcohol tax in Canada.

Likewise, I have little sympathy for those who want to tax everything I do. We're on opposite sites of an unbridgeable chasm, perhaps.

I have little sympathy for those who decide they need to impose unjustified rule, taxation, force and protection private property against the workers. There's a third side to the chasm, if such a thing could exist.

Is it unjustified? By what measure? Alcohol taxes fund the social welfare system, and alcohol taxes the social welfare system. Alcohol tax is rationally connected to it's purpose. It isn't arbitrary, and if it does infringe on your rights (very dubious argument), that infringement is minimal. Alcohol tax doesn't outright prevent you from purchasing alcohol.

As you surely know, it isn't merely taxes that are at work in most provinces. Retail monopolies are another way to keep prices elevated, but even more, they expressly forbid competition in sales and distribution, which cuts off potential markets. There's no question that this infringes on the ability of people to exchange freely.

As to the effects of alcohol (or cigarettes, etc) on the social welfare system, this may be another argument against the social welfare system, or at least the manner in which it tends to operate. If the result is that government must creep further and further into regulating/taxing the lives of the population in order to control ever-rising costs, then something is quite awry.

It's less the tax and more the inability to get it conveniently, since the LCBO is closed for all holidays and also tends to keep short retail hours.

The alcohol laws in Ontario date back to prohibition and I would like to see them relaxed so I could get a beer at the corner store.

MJ is currently in a position to avoid the whole "nanny state" treatment altogether, which is what people are talking about.

What happens when you are convicted for buying & selling black market cigs? And how much do the police care about it? Compared to lets say heroin?

> Most provinces have long been saddled with alcohol monopolies that keep prices quite high

Actually alcohol monopolies keep prices low. Take what happened in Alberta, for example, when they got rid of the monopoly: prices skyrocketed. Plus government store generally carry a wider variety of goods and pay their employees a reasonable amount. Just look at your average BC Liquor Store vs private store. Really only Ontario has managed to mess up the government distribution of alcohol; most provinces haven't had the same experience.

> Canada already has a huge black market in untaxed cigarettes

Really? Where? Yes there are some issues in Eastern Canada (mainly southern ON). But for the most part this just isn't the case.

> Plus government store generally carry a wider variety of goods

Are you nuts? BC private stores carry a dramatically wider variety of goods than public. Where do you live...?

Have a look at Legacy Liquor or Brewery Creek in Vancouver vs any government liquor store. The difference in variety is staggering.

That's true in larger centers like vancouver, but not in small cities and towns. In those place the government stores are an ale drinker's oasis.

>Actually alcohol monopolies keep prices low. Take what happened in Alberta, for example, when they got rid of the monopoly: prices skyrocketed.

Dig a bit deeper. Alberta's situation was/is because of taxes, which remain imposed regardless of who is doing the selling.

>Plus government store generally carry a wider variety of goods

I suspect you've never been outside of the country, to make that claim.

>Really only Ontario has managed to mess up the government distribution of alcohol; most provinces haven't had the same experience.

Ontario isn't even the worst, just the biggest.

>Really? Where? Yes there are some issues in Eastern Canada (mainly southern ON). But for the most part this just isn't the case.

That market is worth billions of dollars, in Quebec and Ontario. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/illegal-cigarettes

What? I was around when alcohol distribution was privatized in Alberta. It was a huge boon. Much nicer stores, better hours, more convenience. Prices didn't really move at all.

Privitization was also huge for motor registration (DMV in the US). There used to be two gov't run registration centers in my town. Open fron 8 to 4 weekdays only. It sucked. Gov't privitized it and suddenly there were dozens open in the city, hours were extended to the evening and weekends and no more lines!!

It depends hugely on where they end up landing on home growing. Right now they're considering 4 plants per residence for personal use. If people can grow their own the retail proposition is very different.

Speaking from experience in Colorado where we have a 6 plant limit, it is plenty. The commercial markets focus on good producing strains, rather than connoisseur strains that often taste much better. The problem has been seeds, but my understanding is that BC has some very good seed banks. I hope you all have the opportunity to cultivate your own plants, and 4 seems too few if you want to keep the pipeline full (i.e. clones/veg/flower).

I fail to see the reason for the delay... Just stop enforcing, period. There is no reason to continue enforcing something that you KNOW is going to be legal soon. Its just letting the last of of the money feed into the judicial system...

I imagine they will more or less stop enforcing, but they probably need time to set up the legal regime for regulating sales. I assume.

*edit: I'd love for someone better informed to correct me, or fill in the gaps in my assumption.

I believe they have all but stopped enforcing people smoking it. They are still arresting those involved in major selling of marijuana, likely because it still funds organized crime.

And the fastest way to shut that down is to legalize the sale of it as quickly as possible... dealers wont take tthe risk on teh street when dispensaries are all around...

I think it might be slightly different, buyers won't take the risk when they can get it legally.

They pretty much did over a decade ago. My own brother was caught[0] by the police with a handful of joints- they ripped them up and threw the remains in a ditch. They don't care, unless you're running a very public chain of retail shops that sell weed to anyone.

[0]Due to idiot friend, the officer had grounds to search the vehicle. I do not like my brother's idiot friend.

Like almost everything about Canada, this is very much a regional thing. Cities and provinces have a lot of leeway to deprioritize things like marijuana prohibition. Just because you won't get busted for simple possession in Vancouver or Toronto, doesn't mean you won't get busted in Regina or Winnipeg. There have been over 22k arrests for simple possession since Trudeau assumed office with the promise of legalization. [1] And the government has said it will not issue pardons for anyone convicted from these arrests.

[1] http://vancouversun.com/news/community-blogs/22400-pot-posse...

But still the police care enough to arrest someone who imports, views or even privately enjoys drawn pornography that appears to show fictional characters who may be under the age of 18.

As a Canadian, Canada should also look at legalizing non-hockey metaphors. Stickhandling as a way of describing legislation? Really?

At least we don't call our MPs "lawmakers", that term is so bizarre to me.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-27/canada-po...

A lot of institutional money in marijuana right now, its hard to hedge so this will make alot of people breath a bit easier now.

What is hard to hedge? If you have a large investment in corporations in the pot industry (although I would dispute your claim that there is a lot of institutional money in pot now), you could easily hedge against the fall of these corporations with CDS and other derivatives.

This is great news! I wonder why we can't legalize all drugs?

I have a side tracked question about this:

Let's say you were in prison for dealing Marijuana. What would the status of your case be now considering that it would be legalized?

(as in, would you still have to serve your term even though the crime you did is now considered legal?)

They could vote to ease punishment for past offenders, but that would be an exception and not the rule. In general people are beholden to the law at the time they're caught breaking it. I got a speeding ticket, and a few months later the speed was changed to match the speed I had been doing. I still was guilty of breaking the law at the moment I was stopped.

So they could put in an exception for past users, but the law defaults to what the books said at the time you committed the crime. If that wasn't the case, people could be convicted of crimes that were not illegal at the time they committed them.

What the hell is Ricky going to do for money now?

I'm looking forward to the episode where he confronts this development.

There's literally already a feature length movie called "Trailer Park Boys: Don't Legalize It". Ricky goes to Ottawa to fight legalization.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3244992/

Silly as it may sound to HackerNews, I had this exact thought given the new season is starting very soon.

In case anyone is curious who Ricky is: http://trailerpark.wikia.com/wiki/Ricky

My friend's friends apparently all grow weed in BC and they are all faced with this new dilemma of finding something new. A bunch tried to get Medical MJ grower licenses but they recently pulled them all. It's estimated BC's weed crop is worth more than it's Lumber output in terms of GDP.

A huge chunk of BC's output is for export to the US. I'd love it if we found a way to tax/regulate it, but I'm guessing there will be plenty of jobs growing illicitly for years to come.

The estimates of the underground market ranged from 1 to 3 Billion per year in the cannabis economy when I lived there. It is a substantial industry there which means a LOT of people in that province work in the black market.

I'm all for legalized marijuana, I just wish we could do away with smoking it in public (and cigarettes). I have no problem with it but the smell.

HN: can we invent a smoking bubble barrier to stop passive smoking please? for cigarettes, weed, e-cigarettes and so on... I'm for legalization but I hate the smell and effects I'm subjected to by smokers...

Smoking will continue, but I suspect that many people will choose to consume via edibles/oils/etc which won't have a smell, or vaporizers which also have minimal odour.

When the dispensaries popped up all over Toronto (pre-raid) there were MANY edibles, so I assume they were popular. Sadly, after the raids the dispensaries switched to /just/ flower and concentrates. One can still order concentrates and edibles online however.

I'm all on board for vaporizers, oils, edibles, etc. since they smell far less than smoking. Though I do get the appeal of the ease of smoking it.

If we have been wrong about prohibition of marihuana for so long, then it seems reasonable to ask "are we not wrong about all drug prohibition"?

Like honestly, who really cares if people make a personal decision to take cocaine or ecstasy or whatever? It's not something I'd do, and doesn't seem good for your health, but apart from that, it's not harming anyone other than the consumer. And if all drugs are freely available and manufactured professionally then they would be much safer and more predicatable and far less likely for people to overdose due to variances in strength of street drugs.

Cheap, clean freely available drugs mean that addicts don't have to dedicate their lives to their habits and thus are more likely to hold together ordinary family life and jobs.

No, things are not black and white. Having a heroin vending machine next to every gumball machine is a bad idea.

Weird. The post you replied to says nothing like that.

Oops, I thought he said "cheap, clean freely available drugs".

everyone has a different idea of freely.

Does requiring a prescription make something not freely available?

What about stores that limit sales (cough syrup or whatever)?

Cigarettes/alcohol have age restrictions and I would call them freely available. I took the comment to mean something more along those lines.

this is a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation of the comment you're replying to. do you expect a charitable response? it looks like you're trying to provoke a flame war.

Marijuana is a relatively safe drug to legalize. Not physically addictive, no real harmful OD potential, etc. A good test case.

For the rest, there has been some "experiments" that provide perhaps some data on what would happen if legalized:

A) Oxycodone was a professionally manufactured, predictable dose pill. The way it was distributed in abuse mode was "not very legal" (abuse of the prescription / controlled substance system). But it still caused huge amounts of problems. In fact, in some areas, you could say it was more of a problem than illegal compounds at one point. Uncontrolled legalization would only invite more shady players into this game; I would say any legalization with opioids needs strong caution.

(Interestingly enough, Adderall, effectively prescription amphetamine, has had a similar "grey market prescription abuse" thing akin to oxycodone. There doesn't seem to be nearly that much news on that compound (other than the occasional news article on it being a "study drug"). First impression is that you could be much looser with that compound compared to opioids...)

B) "Grey market" analogs of recreational drugs have been around in psychonaut markets for a while, but there was a period (early 2010s) where it seemed prominent in many countries even beyond Internet forum areas, eg they were sold in "head shops" and the like. During this period you could buy questionably made cannabinoid agonists (eg "spice" in the US) and you could buy questionably made stimulants of various natures (eg "bath salts" in the US, mephedrone was big in the UK for a while as I understand it, etc.) in various shops.

This did cause some problems, particularly for certain analogs more than others. I would argue, however, that there was some moral panic exaggeration, and a very poor understanding of the science in the press. On the flip side, using people as guinea pigs as that market did probably isn't the best way to approach recreational markets.

Personally, I think it would be great if we could legalize certain compounds, in a controlled manner, using scientific data to determine the dangers and guide appropriate actions. Both of the above examples IMHO show that a good legalization scheme would needs regulations, some compounds more than others.

I do believe our current punitive-oriented approach is ridiculously ineffective.

Oxycodone is still professionally manufactured in predictable dose pills.

I don't smoke marijuana but I welcome it primarily because I hope that freely available marijuana will mean people are less inclined to try meth.

People want to get high, and if they can't get some pot down at the shop, then I think they are more likely to try much more dangerous drugs.

They are actually rushing to get it introduced by 4/20 (I'm not kidding): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-rushing-...

They promised it last year. A lot of people, including current health permit (authorized) users have been complaining that nothing has happened since last April. It might have won him the last election but I don't know the numbers (probably nobody does).

At least Justin Trudeau will go down in the history books for something besides tanking the Canadian economy....

It's always 'later', and 'later' it never happens as promised.

Look at Uruguay. It is legalized - but no pharmacy sells, it's incredibly hard to find legal marijuana, and so the illegal market still thrives.

The medicinal model of the USA is still probably the most successful legalizaton case worldwide.

I have heard Portugal's legalization system is also a huge success.

I'm Canadian and live in the US.

I think it should be legal, since I don't see any reason not to legalize. I'm just worried that this + Trump/Sessions in charge will make things more difficult at the border.

I am sceptical of these kinds of changes. Why is it that governments are going to such trouble to essentially eliminate tobacco, but they are permitting another problematic drug? And it's usually the same side of politics who wants to get rid of tobacco, as wants to introduce marijuana! On the face of it it's strange.

I guess the only thing good about this is it might make it easier to see whether cannabis might cause schizophrenia in certain at-risk populations. :/

Considering the effects, one seems much safer than the other. Are you saying that schizophrenia rates from smoking pot are higher than cancers and lung issues from cigarettes?

You think smoke from marijuana isn't harmful to your lungs? Particularly as it's often inhaled as deeply as possible?

Quantity of smoke inhaled is several orders of magnitude smaller than with cigarettes. There's some evidence to suggest that, whether due to quantity or other factors, smoking marijuana casually does not substantially harm lung function[1].

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/casual-marijuana-...

You sound like a tobacco company executive in the 1960s. No way is inhaling smoke not harmful to your lungs.

It definitely is, but there are also compounds in marijuana that seem to inhibit cancers (citation needed). From memory, the result is that you can still get lung cancer, but the rate of it is much lower than would be expected.

Tobacco companies said the opposite of what their studies showed--so they lied.

Claiming that marijuana is typically smoked orders of magnitude less than cigarettes is not at all a lie but is truly one of the main reasons marijuana doesn't lead to the same lung cancer rates as cigarettes.

Back of the napkin math: Imagine the average smoker smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. 20 cigarettes in a pack and 15 drags per cigarette = 300 drags of smoke per day.

A moderate (or even heavy) marijuana user smokes a bowl or two per day and takes ~4 hits per bowl = 8 drags a day.

Plus marijuana is not addictive like cigarettes so the number of casual marijuana users who can remain once-in-a-while partakers is much higher than with cigarettes. And if funds are tight it's easier for people to stop spending their money on marijuana than on cigarettes. Marijuana's cost on society is overall a lot lower than the societal cost of cigarettes.

Just for some perspective here because I'm not ashamed of myself...

Two bowls per day I'd consider light usage (less than a bowl a day I'd say is very light, or occasional). Heavy users are smoking over an ounce a week, which is greater than an eighth a day. That's quite a few more than two bowls.

At my height I was smoking between 8-12 king size spliffs per day. Though a spliff is mixed with tobacco.

I was a very heavy user, but I was also not that exceptional for the area (PDX).

I still smoke, even though it's likely bad for me. Like drinking, you don't do it for the positive health effects, you do it because it's fun, social, or you simply want to...

you're the cannabis equivalent of a 3 pack a day tobacco smoker. the very high end of extremely heavy usage. the average cannabis user is probably smoking like 1 joint per week, honestly. a daily user maybe smokes 1 joint per day. very few people have jobs where they can be stoned all day.

Do you have any facts to back this up? I just don't think the average marijuana user only uses a single joint in a week. I've known a lot of people who smoke and that amount seems off.

And a lot more people than you'd expect are stoned all day. You just can't tell because they're past the giggling munchies phase of smoking.

I really wish I had better data I could link to you. Just reporting my intuition based on personal experience, and knowing a lot of cannabis users. For obvious reasons, it's not so easy to find good methodically rigorous longitudinal studies of cannabis use.

What do you base this opinion on?

If I have one toot of a joint, am I going to get lung cancer? No? Then what is going to happen to me?

According to studies I've seen, it's similar for cases of more mechanical damage to the lungs and a way lower rate of lung cancer. (With different studies showing either increase or decrease for pot smokers) https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.04846 has a nice review. Or in other words: doesn't matter what I think - let's talk controlled studies instead!

So sure, it's still harmful, but with fewer bad effects, and as far as LE goes, definitely a positive step for society.

You cannot use harm as an argument unless you also include tobacco, alcohol, and opiates. These are the drugs that kill directly and indirectly. We know this, we've known this for decades, and yet they are still legal.

And if it is harmful to smoke, so what? The State allows me to drink 10 bourbon bottles a night, or 10 packs of cigs, or 10 large pizzas now. Do we own our bodies or not?

Although what happens when liver damage and cancer occur? Are you driving up healthcare costs and premiums for all?

Yes, and the State and society is fine with that judging by the fact that we understand the severe consequences of tobacco, alcohol, and opiates and they remain legal. For example, we know that in 2015 over 10,000 fatalities occurred on the roads due to alcohol and, once again, we are fine with the human tragedy and increased healthcare costs.

It does not need to be smoked. It can be eaten, or vaporized, or mixed into a liquid.

But smoking isn't the only way to consume cannabis. Vaporisers are becoming increasingly popular, as well as edibles and tinctures.

I'm just saying if your brownies are smoking you're baking them wrong.

Edited to add I like trying new things and I've tried several THC-free "hemp based" energy drinks and I would assume there is no great technical effort required to merely remove the "THC-free" characteristic. This simplifies the topic to the existing "war on energy drinks" which is a whole nother topic. When I eat something unhealthy and non-paleo I like to try something new and good, if I take a diet vacation its not going to be at McDonalds drinking a Pepsi.

>Considering the effects, one seems much safer than the other. Are you saying that schizophrenia rates from smoking pot are higher than cancers and lung issues from cigarettes?

There is actually zero evidence linking pot and schizophrenia. What studies have been done showed that there was a very tenuous link between marijuana use and the initial onset of symptoms in those predisposed already, but that the overall rates were unnafected.

I'd actually to see this go the way of the LCBO -- high taxes on Marijuana sales that feed into the single-payer healthcare system; you can only buy it from government-owned stores; and there are extensive campaigns to help with addiction, and stigma/fees for smoking it in non-smoking areas.

There was tons of marijuana being smoked in my high school in Toronto, although I didn't realize what it was until I'd been to Dolores Park in SF a few times. People already consume it; may as well tax it and treat it like any other public health issue.

I'm curious why you think centralized government control of it would be a good thing?

I don't find that the LCBO is particularly great, as it severely limits available choice. I'm a collector of bourbon, and the only way to expand my collection is to visit the US and purchase it there, since the LCBO only carries maybe 5 brands, and does not allow importation via mail.

If there was an independent liquor store, they could perhaps specialize in a way the LCBO can't.

There's a strong difference between 'taxed highly and discouraged' vs 'criminal charges and prison time'. The first is a way to promote a healthy society while still allowing some freedom. The other, well, we've seen how well it works.

Frankly, I expect the average price a person pays for a gram of pot will double when this is over- but people will still pay it for the same reason people buy vodka rather than making moonshine or homemade beer.

Don't think of it as legalising another drug; think of it as expanding the rights of a person to own their own body. What right does the State have to legalise and promote one drug but put another in jail for a different drug. Do we own our own bodies or not? These morality laws are from a different era and need to be removed. Drugs are here to stay so lets be sensible about their use.

As for schizophrenia... it's funny that people think that cannabis use is a recent thing. Do you realise that cannabis has been used for centuries and if there was a solid causation between cannabis and schizophrenia you would see the effects now. Also no one has disproved the theory that schizophrenics and other mental health sufferers naturally gravitate to cannabis to ease their symptoms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com