Why Canada's cannabis bubble burst
bbc.com
bbc.com
"This is especially true in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. Red tape and a cap on the number of cannabis retail outlets have made rollout slow. Retail licenses were awarded by lottery, and the province held the number of licenses at 24, to serve a population of 14.5m."
"In December, the Ontario government announced that after a slow and fitful start, the province will open itself up to more cannabis retail. It will do away with the lottery system, the cap on the number of private stores and cancel some pre-qualification requirements."
List of Canadian Provinces by Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and...
Fun fact: rather than each province having a plain-old governor, Canada (as any Commonwealth country) has one Governor General for the whole country; and then each province has a Lieutenant Governor, also appointed by the Queen, to serve under the Governor General.
Mostly they were united under a common desire for welfare transfer payments. Except Ontario, which pays for that, eh.
There is no written constitution, but there are specific acts, charters and traditions that form constitutional law, and define the clear divisions of responsibility between the provincial and federal government. That includes my government's right to set laws about signage of commercial establishments, specific consumer rights I get, and also the commercial law around the sale of both alcohol and cannabis.
Not me, but certainly the provincial legislative assemblies of 1867 :)
> there are specific acts, charters and traditions that form constitutional law, and define the clear divisions of responsibility between the provincial and federal government
The difference is that these powers are a delegation of federal power to the provinces, rather than reservation of state power away from a federation.
The relationship between the federal and provincial governments in Canada is a lot like the relationship between the Queen and the parliament in Britain: in practice, right now, the Queen is powerless; but technically, the parliament's power derives from the Queen, and there's nothing legally stopping a monarch from revoking that delegation of power. In the current cultural climate, that'd be unthinkable; but all it would take is "mere" sectarian shift to allow for it.
https://www.canada.ca/en/intergovernmental-affairs/services/...
Inparticular to quote the gov of canada website:
>"For example, the federal Trade and Commerce power (s. 91(2)) has been interpreted to mean that Parliament can regulate trade generally in Canada, as well as the flow of trade across provincial or international borders, but cannot regulate the operation of particular industries, businesses or professions within provinces. The provincial power over Property and civil rights (s. 92(13)) gives provinces the authority to regulate trade and commerce within their respective territory."
Provincial powers are not delegated by the federal government. The canadian constitution lists certain powers the provinces have and certain powers the federal gov has, with basically anything unmentioned being federal. The federal government doesnt just decide willy nilly what is being delegated to the provinces.
The lieutenant governor doesnt serve under the governor general-they just have different spheres of influence . In provincial matters the lieutenant-governor represents the queen, not the governor general.
That's interesting. It's pretty much the opposite according to the US Constitution, which delegates certain specific powers to the feds, anything else is (supposedly) up to the states. In practice, though, that's been ignored quite a bit in the last century.
*IANA political scientist, i dont know how true this actually is.
The provincial and federal governments are all sovereign, mutually bound under a single constitution. They both derive their powers in parallel from the Constitution Act.
> since it was not formed by the uniting of states wary of federal power, but rather the uniting of colonies which all considered themselves to be under the aegis of a single sovereignty (Britain).
Quebec certainly did not consider themselves under the aegis of British sovereignty. Much of confederation was effectively about assuaging the concerns of Quebeckers losing their religious, linguistic and cultural identity in an increasingly majority-English country.
In some ways, the provinces have more powers than US states. For example, provinces do have a right of secession. If the majority of Quebeckers do vote to leave at some point, the federal government has no legal power to stop them. Though Quebec can't secede unilaterally, either. Both parties would be constitutionally-bound to negotiate a mutually acceptable path to independence.
Canadian provinces are spelled out specifically in the Canadian constitution; they are not creatures of the federal government (unlike municipalities, which do exist at the whims of provincial governments, which is a big problem IMHO, but I digress.)
The only paternalistic powers that the feds hold over the provinces are Disallowance and Reservation. Neither of those powers have been used in decades. Despite the failure of constitutional amendments that, if passed, would have explicitly removed those powers from the constitution, their disuse has raised questions as to whether they are effectively defunct by convention. I suspect that any attempt by the feds to disallow or reserve a provincial law would make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada to answer that question.
Furthermore, any attempt to use those powers on a provincial government, especially so in the case of either the governments of Québec or Alberta, would result in a serious crisis of national unity.
Basically, the federal law removed the criminal prohibition for trafficking and possession, only if the sale/possession is authorized by a provincial law that conforms with certain requirements laid out in the federal law.
Specifically:
69 (1) A person may possess, sell or distribute cannabis if the person is authorized to sell cannabis under a provincial Act that contains the legislative measures referred to in subsection (3)
[...]
(3) (a) they may sell only cannabis that has been produced by a person that is authorized under this Act to produce cannabis for commercial purposes; (b) they may not sell cannabis to young persons; (c) they are required to keep appropriate records respecting their activities in relation to cannabis that they possess for commercial purposes; and (d) they are required to take adequate measures to reduce the risk of cannabis that they possess for commercial purposes being diverted to an illicit market or activity.
All the provinces have enacted laws compatible with the requirements there, but each did so slightly differently.
Production remains more closely held by the federal government, and is regulated directly.
This is also exactly parallel to how alcohol is regulated in Canada.
I personally barely experience any impact of legal marijuana in my life besides smelling it on the street as it isn’t illegal any more. As the article states it isn’t like we became a nation of potheads. I only know 2 people amongst my friends who have made more than one purchase at a retailer.
They don’t even use it recreationally when they are out with us because we are all old enough that we have to drive, work, parent, etc.
My anecdote I think fits with the statistics and the economic availability the article lays out.
ps Future US border guards reading this comment may rejoice at how boring Canada remains. :)
Indeed, countries who legalized cannabis rather saw demand stay stable or even fall (hence why the UN has been advocating to end the "war on drugs" for about two decades now). In fact we have data on alcohol as well in the past century, and clearly prohibition was not correlated with less drinking, more like the opposite.
There's a strong body of studies laying out reasons — the most striking to me being, "if someone indeed has a drug problem, who should take care of them: a cop or a doctor?", implying that people don't even talk to their doctors about illegal substances, for fear of legal consequences, which thus compounds the public health problem; not to mention that the black market is likely to encourage addiction, as well as supply "bad" products.
There's really no argument for a legal solution to drugs, the only proven way to get a healthier population in that regard is from the health / medical angle.
> we are all old enough that we have to drive, work, parent, etc.
That's also part of it: legal things otherwise dangerous are introduced with care to the population (warnings, policies regarding the youth, etc).
This is how, despite the incredible risks it poses, we are able to sell alcohol to the general population and yet contain the risks to a large measure, because we are educated about it and responsible, and we can talk, watch out for others, etc. Granted, it's still the first cause of death on Earth (about equal with tobacco), but it's still a victory given the dangerosity of the product (from a toxicological standpoint, it's the most lethal category, on par with cocaine).
That being said, I hate it when people think it's OK to drink and drive or drink and parent if they remain below the legal maximum. Recreation means that, it's the opposite of "duty": one should not drink or smoke at all if they are expected to be responsible for others, especially children. Get that psychoactive substance (beer, wine, cannabis...) when you're really only responsible for yourself. The legal limit, again, in matters of health (here, your ability to be lucid and with good reflexes) is only indicative, a tolerance for those who didn't have enough time before taking the wheel — certainly not an invitation to drink up until that threshold like some badge of honor.
As far as the "bubble bursting", well, anyone who thought the Canadian government was going to allow the market to mint Marijuana millionaires and billionaires was simply naive.
Among my age group, cartridges of concentrated cannabis are far more popular than actual plant material. Buying from a legal and regulated business gives peace of mind that the concentrate won't be cut with dangerous materials as they often are in the black market.
I've purchased cartridges in the grey market in California that contained hazardous materials. It can happen anywhere.
Out here in Lethbridge, AB (about 100K pop) there's 20 odd stores on Google maps (3-4 within walking distance of me). I've also seen another one or two in the process of being built around town. I made the assumption this story was about too many stores and not enough demand :)
Forgot to mention, in AB all you need (I believe) is a license to sell and you're good to go (like with alcohol).
If I want to buy illegally, I can call ping my friend, they tell me the whole inventory in advance, I tell them what I want, they bring it to me for free, I get very high quality product, it's very cheap, and we hang out for a few hours.
Which experience do you think most people choose?
Buying illegally was always sketchy, never knowing if someone would show up, how good the product was, if it actually was indica or sativa or hybrid, it was always just “good shit”, which wasn’t always true.
Prices feel the same and it’s defiantly not lower potency in my experience.
Gorgeous location, knowledgable staff, fair prices
And like you I call my guy who sends me a list of at least 5-6 different strains, two regular strains he will always have (king and platinum kush), always fresh, with volume pricing up to pounds. Then he shuffles strains and special items like prerolls, edibles, exotics in jars, and oil carts. So there's always a variety. Plus free door to door delivery. So our experiences are similar and the reason why the legal market has yet to catch up with the black market.
Living in Portland, OR that experience is wild to me. All of the shops I’ve been to don’t have any guards, just an employee during the required ID check.
Wish I didn’t have to use an ATM though.
Since I was just curious and don't really consume weed, and wanted to buy something to bring to a friend's place as a gift, I just GTFO. The whole experience was awful and time-wasting, though I guess if you're a pothead wasting time isn't a concern.
My experience in CO was far superior. The place I went to there didn't even have the entrance doors closed, it was like going into a tourist shop selling overpriced t-shirts but instead it was marijuana products. The prices were ridiculous, but at least it didn't feel sleazy or like a huge unnecessary waste of my time where a hold-up may occur at any moment.
When I lived in California I could have it delivered even.
Here in Colorado the black market continues to thrives because shit heads don't think they should have to pay taxes, but the actual experience of legally buying pot is super easy.
I buy my weed from a closet in the back of a clothing store. At least I get quality, correct humidity and I can bring my own packaging.
And don't get me started on the egregiously-named "hobo" run by the sexual-predator-defending Donnelly group.
I live in Denver and I can order online, walk to a dispensary in 10 minutes, show my id and be handed a bag with my order.
What's the deal with this? Admittedly "cash only" sounds more like how the illegal market works...
I don't know where you live. But here in San Francisco, my neighborhood dispensary ("Apothecarium") is a top-notch experience, sort of like visiting a luxury goods store. They have a great waiting area, and when your name is called (usually within a few minutes), there's a concierge waiting for you who will take you through the entire buying process. It's very civilized.
Only inconvenience are: Some puritan counties/cities have banned recreational stores. Prices in turist/ski areas can be a bit more expensive depending on supply/demand. And I think higher CBD stuff is getting divereted to the medical & CBD oil market but that's just a theory.
The illegal market obviously varies dealer to dealer... not everyone has that same kind of stay-and-chill relationship with their dealer.
I know you mean hybrid strains bread for high potency. Prohibitting those if otherwise legal would require a legal basis.
I thought one objective of legalization was to avoid laced product. Of course lacing weed to make it appear more potent and to be addictive is still forbidden. I have no source for that. Chalk it up as purported rumor. I've heard police test a crusher (weed grinder, whatchamacallit) positive for co-alkaloids and amphetamin in Germany.
https://winesvinesanalytics.com/news/article/201942/Will-Eur...
If you want to drink wine from hybrid grapes in the EU, you have to buy import (Moldova, North Macedonia etc) or homemade (usualy low quality) wine.
Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria had to uproot most of their hybrids upon joining the EU. The same would happen to Macedonia.
The article only says that hybrids from the 19th century were inferior; suppose taste wise. Which is a matter of taste, but likely reflected in sales. The upside is resistance to fungi and such.
https://aglc.ca/cannabis/using-cannabis-responsibly/growing-...
Since that didn't actually happen, and I'm also buying my carrots at the supermarket, we can probably deduce that it's not home-grown supply that's the problem here.
... but your underlying point is correct. A better analogy is probably basil, which a large percentage of buyers actually just keep their own plant at home.
Brewing beer is pretty dang easy.
Remember that all liquor stores in Quebec are government stores too. I suspect they'll start distributing them there - possibly dependent upon neighborhood approval.
I'll note that the neighborhood I'm in - the older folks are not happy about the new constant pot smell around.
The Liberal government that was drafting this plan lost the provincial election and the Conservative government scrapped that it.
So it nobody learned any lessons, we just had interesting timing with our election.
Unless that's been changed. It changes everytime we sneeze.
As per the visuals, cannabis use has not grown dramatically since legalization. Oils and raw bud are simply not as accessible as a bar of chocolate.
I imagine that won't cause a significant bump either, but at the least, it opens up the market to the casual user -- which simply has not happened yet in Canada.
It's hard to make a legal business work when most are still against it functioning.
That said, it ain't dead yet.
It looks like the price of legalization (in this case) is taxation and regulation. It should have been possible to legalize without either of these things, but that didn't happen. Gotta wonder why.
There were multiple parents/working class people with tables/setups in their garage. Come over for a cup of coffee, catch up about the kids, grab a few grams until next week! Nothing nefarious.
On the consumer end the logistics is really the benefit of legal weed. You don't have to know a guy, play a game of telephone, wait around. Instead you can visit a professionally run store filled with people that know about the products and gear that is stocked. Makes it much easier to add into the routine right beside picking up groceries. That being said you pay a premium for that, and there's still black-market services doing Amazon style home delivery.
Speaking of things that don't raise an eyebrow in San Francisco.
It likely explains why Toronto had to go the bylaw infraction route to close down shops. Which was still a waste of money...
why would i bother putting my info into a govt database of people consuming products that are illegal in most areas of the world?
my friend recently got banned from the us for having a small amount for personal consumption
would rather get higher quality/better priced product from friends that get shipped to me at my convenience than deal with the headache of legal weed
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cannabislicensing/map
I would suspect that many people purchasing on the black market are in fact purchasing from stores (not just “their weed guy”) but don’t realize the store is not properly licensed.
In licensed shops you get a very limited selection and typically, a low inventory. They've got little sniffer pods where you're supposed to be able to smell the product but it's nothing like the old shops where they'd have a canister where you could really get a good whiff. Packaging requirements mean that there's a limited selection of quantities; and typically, the packaging is at least 3x bigger (and significantly more expensive) than previously.
My preferred purchasing pattern is to buy a single gram of a few unfamiliar strains, test them out, and then come back in a few days to get an ounce of the best one. With this pattern, I only need to go to the store a few times a year. With the new shops, they don't carry single grams, and you can't save on packaging by buying in bulk -- if you want an ounce, you'd have to buy 10 of the 3.5g canisters.
I was pro-legalization for obvious reasons but now I wish I had a good black-market hookup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoflowering_cannabis
So the growers can always beat the legal price because the goverment has encumbered the legal growers with red tape and other restrictions to help the illegal market continue to prosper. Remove the limits = $1 a gram or even less
What else grows in Canada?
Check out these pics from Colombia: https://medellinguru.com/colombia-cannabis/
In Colombia, you can grow year round with only tarps up to catch the rain.
If you support such laws, shouldn't you ask yourself the same question?
Illegal != immoral, after all.
Sure. I've had some excellent homegrown weed. Most parts of the US don't have access to this though. Even in the Bay Area there are places where the homegrown stuff is pretty low quality. If I go to a dispensary I can get a much greater selection, is consistent quality, and isn't grown in some destructive "farm" in a state park. The dispensary I go to takes online orders and has them ready in 10 minutes.
I'm mostly into edibles these days. It was a bit disappointing when California capped the max THC per package (100 mg) -- but upside is pretty awesome. I can get a consistent product that's been tested to be a certain potency and free of pesticides and whatnot.