Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Liberty Summer Seminar: Jan Narveson and Travis Smith | Main | More British Files »

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Government Grow-op Shut Down

The Federal Government has been growing marijuana in an old mine in Flin Flon Manitoba for 9 years for the 300 people that receive the plant from them for medical purposes. The company that has been contracted to grow the pot for Health Canada, Prairie Plant Systems, says that they ceased operation June 30th because they couldn't secure long-term access to the mine since it's owner, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, is closing it down in 2012.

The government's marijuana program licenses certified medical users to grow their own pot, to have someone grow it for them or to buy it straight from Health Canada. More than 1,400 Canadians are authorized to possess marijuana for medical purposes.

I find it strange that Health Canada was tasked to grow the pot for medical use. Does Health Canada manufacture Demoral? Morphine? Tylenol 3 or any other pain killers available by perscription? Nope. The drug manufacturers do that, and they do a better job of it. If medical marijuana alone was opened up to drug companies you would have some level of competition at least that may improve the quality of the product; government pot doesn't have a great reputation as far as quality is concerned.

The government says it's okay for them to have a grow op, but anyone else that does so is raided, arrested and possibly shot at. It's hypocritical.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on July 21, 2009 in Marijuana reform | Permalink

Comments

Do you really want to have another go at this, Scott? The arguments for and against are the same as they were the last time, and the time before, and the time before that, and so on. You're not offering anything new.

Posted by: Shane Matthws | 2009-07-21 6:25:32 PM


I guess the government's position remains just as indefensible as ever; and that wrongness needs to be pointed out continually.
Matter of fact with C-15 the Conservatives hit a new high point with silliness, well dumbness actually.

Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-21 6:31:17 PM


@ Shane
//You're not offering anything new.//

That's not the intent. This is recent news about the governments involvement in the drug trade, which they both take part in and prosecute at the same time.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-21 6:39:09 PM


Shane, I can't remember if we ar of the same position on the issue but I agree with your comment. But on the other hand, what are blogs for if not a little debate.

Posted by: TM | 2009-07-21 6:40:36 PM


Scott, you've already pointed out the "government's involvement in the drug trade." They're now apparently getting out of the drug trade, and still you kick up a face. Jakus me, boss, hot or cold won't please you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-21 6:44:06 PM


Shane, I am passing along recent news. This is a blog after all.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-21 7:07:48 PM


Okay, I'm not making this up. I'm losing vision in one eye, and the doctors haven't figured it out, yet. On my next appointment, I'm going to discuss the benefits of THC. I haven't smoked pot for many years, and have no desire to do so, but if it'll help save my vision, I sure hope it's available. I'd be fine with synthetic THC. I imagine it has no smell?

Chances are, they're just going to tell me I took too many shots, anyway.

Posted by: dp | 2009-07-21 8:14:24 PM


Another link to the G&M take on it all. Be sure to read the comments.

Posted by: Dana | 2009-07-21 9:22:15 PM


They should have let some of my old stoner buds run it. They know how to grow that stuff.

Posted by: B | 2009-07-21 10:17:52 PM


bah
http://sturly.com/af03

Posted by: Dana | 2009-07-21 10:21:29 PM


I agree with most of this article, but I would hate to have drug manufacturers grow my pot. They would likely suck at it, and I think it would be bad news if synthetic THC were available in pill form. Too bad we can't have a legitimate, lucrative pot growing industry in this country.

Posted by: Barb | 2009-07-22 1:23:13 AM


@ Barb //but I would hate to have drug manufacturers grow my pot.//

Why? They have experience manufacturing pharmacitucals, while the government grows it's ditch weed.

//Too bad we can't have a legitimate, lucrative pot growing industry in this country.//

Those moralists out there that control the government won't let that happen.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 8:39:16 AM


That's interesting, dp. I have heard many claims for medical marijuana, but never that it will correct failing eyesight, unless it's due to glaucoma, which can in fact be caused by trauma. Either way I hope it works out for you. And make sure the doctor thoroughly checks both your eyes, to be safe.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 9:09:12 AM


"I agree with most of this article, but I would hate to have drug manufacturers grow my pot. They would likely suck at it, and I think it would be bad news if synthetic THC were available in pill form."

You mean, they would remove as much as the psychoactive component as possible, with the result that it would treat your symptoms but be no fun to take. Barb, has it ever occurred to you that the anarchistic, rebel tendencies of many pot smokers are the reason it hasn't achieved legality? Sometimes I think the best thing pot advocates could do for their cause is to simply keep quiet and let science decide the issue.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 9:13:55 AM


"Shane, I am passing along recent news."

No, you're carping again. You get mad when the government sells pot and get mad when they don't. That is not news; nor is it recent.

As for hypocrisy, I remind you what happened on your last pot-themed thread which included a subtitle condemning personal attacks. You wound up trolling on your own blog. Why are you allowed to be hypocritical, but not the government?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 9:18:32 AM


//That is not news; nor is it recent.//

This story came out yesterday, that's not recent?

//Why are you allowed to be hypocritical, but not the government?//

I won't come to your house and shoot you, the government will.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 9:37:09 AM


"This story came out yesterday, that's not recent?"

You are using that news as a fulcrum for your tirade against the government's "hypocrisy," a theme we are already familiar with. It certainly isn't going to change the dynamics of the "drug war" appreciably, or even the "medical marijuana" scene appreciably.

"I won't come to your house and shoot you, the government will."

The government will not shoot me under any conditions under which you would not also shoot me if you had the means. This is your clumsiest evasion yet.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 10:36:07 AM


@ Shane //The government will not shoot me under any conditions under which you would not also shoot me if you had the means.//

I would not shoot you for having a grow op, or gambling, or any number of other victimless crimes that the government has killed people over.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 10:46:36 AM


"I would not shoot you for having a grow op, or gambling, or any number of other victimless crimes that the government has killed people over."

The government has killed people over none of those things.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 11:55:28 AM


@ Shane //The government has killed people over none of those things.//

I said getting shot at, not necessarily getting killed.

And yes, people have been killed over that, but you don't care do you.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 12:38:04 PM


I return from a week in England and see Carnegie is still writting about the only subject he seems to know anything about.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-22 1:53:06 PM


I hope the guvamint has better luck building cars than it had growing grass.

Posted by: foobert | 2009-07-22 6:00:37 PM


"I said getting shot at, not necessarily getting killed."

The government has not shot at people for those things either.

"And yes, people have been killed over that, but you don't care do you."

Only by their fellow criminals. These are men who choose to live by the gun. They can have no complaint should they likewise die.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 6:14:00 PM


"I return from a week in England and see Carnegie is still writting about the only subject he seems to know anything about."

Who says he knows anything about it, Stig?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 6:14:44 PM


Who says he knows anything about it, Stig?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 6:14:44 PM

True. Didn't he claim a couple of weeks ago he was going to write about rising Canadian unemployment, immigration, auto bailouts etc.? I wonder how many Canadians jumped out their office window when they heard the government was closing down its marijauna growing operation?

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-22 6:51:52 PM


@ Shane //The government has not shot at people for those things either.//

Really?

I would provide links for you of news stories where people are shot and wouldned or killed in gamlbing and grow op raids, but it really wouldn't matter becasue you would ignore them.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 7:43:45 PM


@ Shane & The Stig...

Please stay on topic and refrain from making personal comments.

//True. Didn't he claim a couple of weeks ago he was going to write about rising Canadian unemployment, immigration, auto bailouts etc.?//

These are the subjects of the 10 blog posts I have made here on the Western Stanard;

Marijuana 2
Religious Freedom 2
Flodding bail oputs 1
Alcohol 1
Child Family Services 1
Human Rights 1
Tornoto Strike 1
Aboroginal Issues 1

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 7:50:42 PM


These are the subjects of the 10 blog posts I have made here on the Western Stanard;
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 7:50:42 PM

I must have missed them. Though your blogging style does resemble The Drudge Report, a couple of lines and a link to a story.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-22 8:23:11 PM


@ The Stig

a couple of lines and a link to a story.

That is true for some of them. Most of them are a few paragraphs and the Legalize It post was very long.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 8:55:14 PM


I tend to be somewhat surprised that the government did the growing for reasons pointed out by Scott. I suppose it points to the tentative character of their legal strategy. Like a beach goer dipping their toe into the water.

Shane sit sipping beer on the beach shouting "Damn you, the sea monsters will get you!" And suffice it to say that many people are swimming, but others advocate killing off the sharks.

Posted by: Timothy Shaw-Zak | 2009-07-22 11:12:14 PM


Timothy, after that post, I'm wondering if you haven't had a few cold ones yourself. That last paragraph is about as clear as frosted glass on a foggy morning.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:51:14 AM


"I would provide links for you of news stories where people are shot and wouldned or killed in gamlbing and grow op raids, but it really wouldn't matter becasue you would ignore them."

They're not killed for those illegal activities. They're killed because they put up a fight. If the running sores who murder children and dump their mutilated corpses in farmers' fields can be arrested without injury, so can small-time dope growers. It's their own propensity for violence that gets them shot.

"Wouldned?" I've been trying not to say too much about your execrable spelling, but that one would simply not pass without comment.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:54:45 AM


"Please stay on topic and refrain from making personal comments."

Is this the same man who wound up trolling his own blog, and then pulling it altogether?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:57:07 AM


They're killed because they put up a fight.

There was a dentist 2 years ago shot in the head by police while handcuffed, on his knees, after a "raid" of his after hours poker game.

It's their own propensity for violence that gets them shot.

Playing poker and growing plants are not violent acts. Busting into someone property with guns waving is the violent act. The government are the single most purveyors of violence in this country and in the entire world.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 8:10:04 AM


Is this the same man who wound up trolling his own blog, and then pulling it altogether?

Shane, please stay on topic and refrain from making personal comments.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 8:11:55 AM


"There was a dentist 2 years ago shot in the head by police while handcuffed, on his knees, after a "raid" of his after hours poker game."

Reference.

"Busting into someone property with guns waving is the violent act."

Granted, the police in recent years have become increasingly paranoid, which has made them more aggressive. That said, it's their job to arrest criminals and secure evidence. Even a "minarchist" government would be expected to enforce the law, and enforcement requires force, as much force as the suspect's level of cooperation dictates.

Your base insinuation that people are being summarily executed for growing pot, however, is debunked. You know, at first I thought you were merely hypocritical, ignorant, and hiding behind a substandard intelligence and level of literacy. Now I wonder if you're not downright delusional.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 8:41:44 AM


@ Shane

You first, boy.

Shane, I would like to have civil discussion. If you don't like the rules, then don't post. Last warning.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 8:48:34 AM


"Shane, I would like to have civil discussion."

For a guy who calls himself a libertarian you sure are an oppressive wannabe little tyrant. Selectively attacking your opponents' arguments as "uncivil" is, in fact, uncivil, and arbitrary.

Readers and commenters make blogs, most of us have commented here a lot longer than you've been here Scott and your constant hectoring about staying on topic and civility is out of line and very, very different to what we are accustomed to from the rest of the WS staff. If you can't take a bit of debate without lecturing and harassing commenters then kindly find somewhere else to blog; we were here long before you came and will be here long after you flame out, as other uncivil WS bloggers have.

Posted by: Fair Commenter | 2009-07-23 1:46:38 PM


"very different to what we are accustomed to from the rest of the WS staff"

Each poster is in charge of the activity on their post. I would like some civil discussion, if you don't like the rules then don't post.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 2:02:46 PM


"If you can't take a bit of debate "

I welcome debate, unfortunately what I found a lot of on this blog are trolls, flamers, personal attacks and other undesirable methods of discussion.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 2:05:14 PM


Boy, it's quiet in here.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-24 8:26:48 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.