The Shotgun Blog
« Thief gets off lightly | Main | The Making of a Nation »
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Top Canadian export under threat
Douglas Haddow has published an interesting article at the Guardian, and P.M. Jaworski posted a piece of the article here on the Shotgun Blog. Mr. Haddow points out that the marijuana trade has been an under the table staple of the Canadian economy for years. The value of the crop is that, much like alcohol, it is pretty much recession proof. Mr. Haddow suggests that this may at least be part of the secret of Canada’s not-as-bad-as-the-rest economy.
There is something about this article that rings true. It has been an open secret for a while that marijuana is one of Canada’s top exports. It is most certainly the most important crop in British Columbia. It is impossible to calculate the wealth that has been generated by marijuana sales, but it is likely in the Billions.
Mr. Haddow goes on to point out two threats to Canada’s position as a world leader in marijuana production. The threat that is outside of our control is the possibility of a liberalization of the marijuana laws in California. This will create more vibrant competition for Canada’s crop, but Canada has long competed with Californian products and so I am not terribly worried.
The bigger threat comes from within Canada. The anti-marijuana crusade of the Conservative government can’t possibly destroy the whole industry. When in history has any government been able to completely control the demands and supplies of the market place? But the government can certainly do a lot of harm to the wealth generation of the marijuana industry.
At a time that the country is limping out of recession and governments on all levels are in deficit, a booming industry like the marijuana trade should not be discouraged by the government.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on August 5, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
Due to the influence of our southern neighbour and our dependence on same, you will not see the legalisation of marijuana no matter which political party is in power in Ottawa. Like it or not that IS how it is.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-08-05 11:22:53 AM
Oh my, is that 'IS how it is"? Well we should give up then.
Cuz its has never happened in the past that Canada has done things in advance of our neighbour to the south - no same sex marriage, no abolition of slavery or anything like that.
Well, I won't give up fighting for what is right, just because the Yanks don't like it...
Posted by: Mike | 2010-08-05 11:36:35 AM
Alain,
That is true but the California proposal brings a great deal of hope. If enough States legalize or liberalize their marijuana laws it will be easier for Canada to do it too.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-08-05 11:37:22 AM
Mike, we were not as dependent on the USA at the time of their prohibition. Your example of SSM is irrelevant. Drugs on the other hand are taken very seriously south of the border for right or wrong reasons. I am not suggesting giving up in what you believe, only that one does need to be realistic, which means it is not about which political party rules in Ottawa.
Hugh, as I stated elsewhere drugs come under federal jurisdiction in the USA, so California has no jurisdiction to legalise marijuana without Washington's agreement.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-08-05 11:50:11 AM
Any Western Standard scribbler who maintains that pot is "just another topic" would do well to heed the fact that this one subject has spawned three separate threads in less than a day. Seriously, what will be discussed here that could not have been put on the "Canada's Economy and Marijuana" thread? Talk about argumentum ad nauseum.
Oh, and Hugh, since you find gangster industries so profitable, I point out that we could probably make a mint through prostitution, slavery, racketeering, extortion, influence-peddling, money laundering, contract murder, and any of the other favourite gangster pastimes. If anyone out there had any lingering doubts as to the moral bankruptcy of modern libertarians, the news that they are looking to the criminal underworld for economic salvation should quash them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 11:54:51 AM
That is true but the California proposal brings a great deal of hope. If enough States legalize or liberalize their marijuana laws it will be easier for Canada to do it too.
And how to get around international drug-control treaties to which both nations are signatory? Or, like our own Supreme Court, will America's judges try to muscle in on foreign policy matters too?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 11:56:00 AM
Oh, and Hugh, since you find gangster industries so profitable, I point out that we could probably make a mint through prostitution, slavery, racketeering, extortion, influence-peddling, money laundering, contract murder, and any of the other favourite gangster pastimes.
No matter how many pejorative terms like "gangster" you employ, these acts are not all on the same moral footing. Some — like slavery, extortion, murder, and so on — are coercive, and thus inherently wrong. Others are done voluntarily, lack a victim, and are only "crimes" in a legal sense.
Only someone confused about the difference between legality and morality would try to make such a poor argument. Go back to the Tory blogs, Shane.
Posted by: Spazmo | 2010-08-05 12:12:01 PM
No matter how many pejorative terms like "gangster" you employ, these acts are not all on the same moral footing.
And no matter how many respectable terms like "merchant" and "farmer" you peddle, a dope pusher is still a dope pusher.
Some — like slavery, extortion, murder, and so on — are coercive, and thus inherently wrong. Others are done voluntarily, lack a victim, and are only "crimes" in a legal sense.
All laws contain an element of coercion, Hugh. Think about it. And drug abuse is not a victimless crime.
Only someone confused about the difference between legality and morality would try to make such a poor argument.
Only somebody confused between honest work and mercenary work would be so eager to step into a gangster's shoes for a piece of the profits. And there is considerable uncertainty as to whether taxed and regulated dope would be competitive with the untaxed and unregulated kind. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why someone already accustomed to breaking the law for pleasure will suddenly stop if the only reward for doing so is a bigger hole in his wallet.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 1:42:49 PM
P.S. You didn't answer the drug-treaty question. Frankly, I doubt you even thought of that.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 1:43:27 PM
Big difference: murder should remain illegal. Pot, on the other hand, is a friggin' plant!
Anyone who condemns weed while pouring themselves another scotch is, by definition, a hypocrite.
Posted by: LP Sullivan | 2010-08-05 2:12:48 PM
And uranium is a mineral. I guess that means that anyone who advocates restrictions on its distribution while stocking up on coal is also a hypocrite.
It is better to keep your mouth shut, and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
- Mark Twain
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 2:27:23 PM
Poor Shane such a dope , gangsters are created by prohibition, like i said earlier, with laws prohibiting what people like how could they exist, gangsters are waiting for cigarettes to be outlawed, a whole new industry will begin for them.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-05 2:40:36 PM
Libertarians arnt immoral its people like you Shane who want through everybody in jail that you happen to dislike.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-05 2:41:56 PM
Poor Shane such a dope , gangsters are created by prohibition...
No, gangsters are created by the people who buy from them.
gangsters are waiting for cigarettes to be outlawed, a whole new industry will begin for them.
No, they're not. A full third of cigarettes smoked by teens in this country are contraband; in Quebec, next to the Apache reserve, it's more like half. Cost-conscious smokers are turning to the cheaper smuggled cigarettes instead of paying for the overtaxed legal ones. The same thing would most likely happen with dope, whose users are already accustomed to breaking the law and whose only reward for going straight would be to pay more for the same product.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 2:43:55 PM
Libertarians arnt immoral its people like you Shane who want through everybody in jail that you happen to dislike.
Can you substantiate this remark? Or are you just spouting off? In fact, do you ever do anything else? I've not seen one serious argument from you. Just a lot of spite and anger.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 2:48:15 PM
All laws contain an element of coercion, Hugh. Think about it.
I'm not Hugh, and it's perfectly possible to conceive of legal systems that rely on voluntary contracts and the threat of boycott rather than a state monopoly on coercive force. Try reading some left-libertarian literature sometime. Having said that, I would regard coercive force as acceptable in in response to same: i.e. it's justified to retaliate against an assailant, or seek retribution from a robber. Of course, when it comes to drugs, the people doing the assailing and robbing tend to be the government.
And drug abuse is not a victimless crime.
Suppose I live on a desert island and grow my own opium. Suppose I use that opium to the point of neglecting my usual responsibilities (fishing, picking coconuts, etc.). Whom have I aggressed against? It's ridiculous to claim that the mere act of drug use or abuse victimizes others.
Only somebody confused between honest work and mercenary work would be so eager to step into a gangster's shoes for a piece of the profits.
Here we go again. Mercenary work is any service for hire that Shane doesn't approve of. Gangsterism is a network of people conspiring to sell a product Shane don't approve of. Once you wade through Shane's swamp of invective, there's precious little argument left.
And there is considerable uncertainty as to whether taxed and regulated dope would be competitive with the untaxed and unregulated kind. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why someone already accustomed to breaking the law for pleasure will suddenly stop if the only reward for doing so is a bigger hole in his wallet.
That's not the only reward: they also get to stop spending time and money evading the police and protecting their product, and they get access to a larger market. I suspect this would be enough to push most marijuana producers into the white market, though that obviously depends on the tax level. But regardless, you've made an argument against taxation and regulation in general, not an argument in favour of drug prohibition. I'm glad that for once we're on the same page about something.
Posted by: Spazmo | 2010-08-05 3:14:02 PM
I can think of a few rewards for purchasing your dope from a convenience store instead of the local dealer:
1. Guaranteed quality. You know you won't be smoking the pesticide sprayed on at the last minute to save the crop from spider mites (and the grower from retribution for losing the crop).
2. Convenience. Your dealer isn't open for business 24/7 but the local 7-11 is.
3. Accountability. Dealer shorted you a gram and a half? Tough luck. Convenience store did? You now have legal channels to make a complaint.
4. No trouble with the law. It will still be illegal to sell pot on the black market.
I have no delusions that the black market would disappear upon legalization, but I think it would change significantly. The commercial legal market would certainly shrink the black market, although we don't know for sure how much.
Personal (legal) cultivation in backyard gardens would increase and parts of the black market formerly associated with organized crime would give way to neighbours selling to neighbours, friends selling to friends. Still a black market, but not as much of the violent and corrupting one that everyone hates.
Posted by: MJ | 2010-08-05 3:59:33 PM
Once again Shane you just dont get it, cigarettes are cheap , governments interfere in the market place by taxing cigarettes to deter people from smoking, so the black market takes over, once again you just dont get it
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-05 4:24:19 PM
Theres two types of people against ending prohibition, that would be people who work in the justice system or people selling on the black market
which one are you Shane?
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-05 4:32:18 PM
I'm not Hugh, and it's perfectly possible to conceive of legal systems that rely on voluntary contracts and the threat of boycott rather than a state monopoly on coercive force.
It’s possible to conceive of cute little leprechauns wearing funny little hats, too. Let me know when either one happens.
Try reading some left-libertarian literature sometime.
No thanks. For escapist fantasy I prefer the works of Robert E. Howard.
Having said that, I would regard coercive force as acceptable in in response to same: i.e. it's justified to retaliate against an assailant, or seek retribution from a robber. Of course, when it comes to drugs, the people doing the assailing and robbing tend to be the government.
Right. Most of the slaughter in Mexico is really being perpetrated by government death squads dressed up as gangsters. Tell me more.
Suppose I live on a desert island and grow my own opium. Suppose I use that opium to the point of neglecting my usual responsibilities (fishing, picking coconuts, etc.). Whom have I aggressed against? It's ridiculous to claim that the mere act of drug use or abuse victimizes others.
Do you live on a desert island, though? No. So we’ll have done with the device of the hypothetical argument, thank you. This is a major failing of libertarian philosophy; as succinctly summed up by another contributor, it acknowledges neither “us” nor “them.” It acknowledges only “I.” That does not accurately describe the world in which we live.
Here we go again. Mercenary work is any service for hire that Shane doesn't approve of. Gangsterism is a network of people conspiring to sell a product Shane don't approve of. Once you wade through Shane's swamp of invective, there's precious little argument left.
Here we go again; attacking people and not arguments. These points to me. Whee.
That's not the only reward: they also get to stop spending time and money evading the police and protecting their product, and they get access to a larger market. I suspect this would be enough to push most marijuana producers into the white market, though that obviously depends on the tax level.
I was talking about the advantages to the buyer, not the advantages to the seller; try to keep up. However, pot laws are so laxly enforced currently that there is little actual risk as it is. Most first-time growers get no time at all. And good luck convincing cagey types like these to put their names on a government list and surrender a huge chunk of their income in the form of taxes.
But regardless, you've made an argument against taxation and regulation in general, not an argument in favour of drug prohibition. I'm glad that for once we're on the same page about something.
Unfortunately, Spazmo, since the legalize-and-tax approach seems to be just about the only way people will even consider legalizing pot, it’s not currently feasible to separate the two. Just as it’s not feasible to create policy based on the assumption that everyone lives on a desert island.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 4:56:19 PM
MJ,
1. Commercial growers don’t use pesticides? Expect to pay more, muchas more, for organic pot.
2. Three words: Dial-A-Dope.
3. Drug dealers who short their clients are found face-down in the Fraser River.
4. None of the parties currently involved in the trade has any regard for the law as it is.
Moreover, you’ve made several unsubstantiated assumptions, one of the most egregious being that people would be allowed to grow their own. The only official reason marijuana is being considered for legalization is the tax revenue it would presumably bring in. Home growers pay no taxes, so I expect home growing would still be a no-no, just as it is currently illegal to operate an unlicensed liquor distillery, even though you can make your own wine and beer.
As for the corrupting and violent black market that everyone supposedly hates, I’m sorry to report, pot smokers don’t hate it. They freely bankroll it, and wear that fact like a badge of honour.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 5:07:39 PM
Once again Shane you just dont get it, cigarettes are cheap , governments interfere in the market place by taxing cigarettes to deter people from smoking, so the black market takes over, once again you just dont get it
And what is the only reason California is considering the legalization of marijuana? HELLO! TAXES. Taxes people don’t currently pay on illegal product. Taxes pot advocates naïvely believes smokers would willingly switch to paying. You’re the one who doesn’t get it, because all these details bore you.
Theres two types of people against ending prohibition, that would be people who work in the justice system or people selling on the black market
Says who and based on what?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 5:13:31 PM
For all intents and purposes it is already legal in california.
http://gtreport.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/100s-of-marijuana-stores-in-california-open-to-the-public/
Posted by: peterj | 2010-08-05 9:51:05 PM
And it sounds like the residents are not too happy with the results, doesn't it, Peter?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 10:41:11 PM
Marijuana is why the Canadian economy is doing better than most? Funny, I thought those oil sands in Alberta had something to do with it(what about that offshore drilling near New Foundland?)! Also, cutting corporate taxes at a time when many countries are increasing taxes might have something to do with it. Funny, neither Australia or New Zealand has legalized marijuana and their economies are in better shape than Canada's. Australia's unemployment rate has remained below 6% this entire time and their total federal debt is only $90 billion which they plan to have paid off within 5 years. Instead of debating marijuana every two seconds, why can't the writers of the western standard research and do some stories on why these two countries are passing Canada by. I get your marijuana argument. However, are you not the least bit curious about how two countries that have no oil or gas are outperforming us? I mean look at Australia half the country is unlivable desert. Canada's abundance of resources should have the country running circles around these two. Yet, instead we are falling flat!
Posted by: Milhouse | 2010-08-05 11:11:17 PM
canada is nothing more than the chick that rides on the back of the US's motorcycle.
a nation of stupid, spoiled, entitled wimps.
Posted by: Russell Barth | 2010-08-06 3:38:09 AM
What does that make you, Russell?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 6:27:24 AM
No, they're not. A full third of cigarettes smoked by teens in this country are contraband; in Quebec, next to the Apache reserve, (...)
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-05 2:43:55 PM
That would be the Akwesasne Mohawk reserve.
Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2010-08-06 7:11:33 AM
Sorry, NNUS, you're quite right. I just couldn't remember the name and I was too tired to go hunting for it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 8:19:07 AM
What Canadians need to understand is the question " who owns or bodies" I believe most Canadians would say that we own our bodies(except Shane Matthews).
If the Government could get that message loud and clear they would have to get out of the prohibition business .If people say no, the government owns us, and that they should manage our private lives, then the government could dictate everything we do , they could ban chocolate,(i can hear Shane" you people quit eating chocolate the government knows best") .
The government tells us its a womens right to an abortion because she owns her body but will through her in jail for using drugs.
Sad thing about the U S they spend billions fighting the war on drugs and nobody really knows why ,if its a health issue , well sorry to say there a nation of fat sick people.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-06 8:34:18 AM
You didnt answer the question Shane , which one are you , seller of drugs or are part of our corrupt justice system?
People act in there own self interest, you sound like a guy with a lot to lose if prohibition ends
and yes i act in my own self interest , its my life my body, ill make my own decisions.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-06 9:01:45 AM
I wonder how you measure the effect smuggling has on the Canadian economy? Who keeps those statistics, anyway? Considering the fact these smugglers pay little or no taxes, I can't see much of a benefit to the overall health of our economy. Or were you just being fecicious?
Some funny comments about slavery. Mike, are you aware that Canada never abolished slavery? Really. We never did.
Posted by: dp | 2010-08-06 9:41:08 AM
Shane Matthews:
1. You missed the point. Commercial growers and their crops would be inspected and held to safety standards.
2. Maybe there are instances of 24 hour a day services. I have never encountered such a thing. They are certainly a tiny minority in the overall market.
3. Your outlandish statement helps prove my point. Your example (or another form of violence) is a totally unreasonable path of recourse for average Joe who buys a 1/4 and only gets 5.5 grams. On the other hand, Joe can go back to a legal store and say "Hey, this package was defective and I want a new one!"
4. So what? Respect will come when the disrespected law changes. The vast majority of pot smoking citizens are otherwise law abiding.
Regarding growing:
Distilleries are illegal because they are dangerous (e.g., explosions, fires, and contaminated products). Wine and beer making are comparatively safe.
The closest analogy to growing your own cannabis is growing your own tobacco. The production method is the exact same and the tax structures for commercial products would likely be similar. Growing your own tobacco is perfectly legal, despite there being no tax on it.
Posted by: MJ | 2010-08-06 10:09:47 AM
Actually, dp, Upper Canada abolished slavery in 1793, and in 1833, slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 10:44:03 AM
What Canadians need to understand is the question " who owns or bodies"
Who put you in charge of what we need to understand, Don? It’s common for reformists to suggest that it is the world, rather than they, that is faulty.
I believe most Canadians would say that we own our bodies(except Shane Matthews). If the Government could get that message loud and clear they would have to get out of the prohibition business.
Ownership of your body is not in question. Ownership of what you choose to put in it is. You have to own what you put in before you can put it in. Unless you’re a thief.
If people say no, the government owns us, and that they should manage our private lives, then the government could dictate everything we do , they could ban chocolate,(i can hear Shane" you people quit eating chocolate the government knows best") .
Hearing things that aren’t there is a common result of consuming psychotropic hallucinogens, Don.
The government tells us its a womens right to an abortion because she owns her body but will through her in jail for using drugs.
The logic behind abortion is faulty, because while it acknowledges the woman’s right to own her body, it does not acknowledge the infant’s right to do the same. However, what the government is regulating in this case is ownership of the drug, not the body.
Sad thing about the U S they spend billions fighting the war on drugs and nobody really knows why ,if its a health issue , well sorry to say there a nation of fat sick people.
It’s not a health issue; there’s no underlying pathology. They just consider it a “health” issue because detox is more like medical treatment than anything else. It’s still the result of a personal failing of the individual, not a disease.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 10:50:36 AM
You didnt answer the question Shane , which one are you , seller of drugs or are part of our corrupt justice system?
Neither. Now a question for you: Which are you, pusher or buyer? Either way, you're a crook.
People act in there own self interest, you sound like a guy with a lot to lose if prohibition ends
If people always acted in their own best interest they wouldn't jump out of perfectly good aircraft or, for that matter, do drugs in the first place.
and yes i act in my own self interest , its my life my body, ill make my own decisions.
But not your drugs.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 10:53:21 AM
MJ,
1. You mean the way herb growers and sellers have their crops inspected and are held to safety standards?
2. So are 24-hour liquor stores.
3. Whoever said drug users were reasonable?
4. Not true; a scofflaw is a scofflaw.
Distilleries are illegal because they are dangerous (e.g., explosions, fires, and contaminated products). Wine and beer making are comparatively safe.
Grow ops are also dangerous (they cause fires; they wreck the house; they stink). The same is true for street or home mixing of drugs. So we have a public-safety argument for keeping home-growing illegal in addition to the taxation angle. Thanks for bringing this up; I had not thought of that before.
The closest analogy to growing your own cannabis is growing your own tobacco. The production method is the exact same and the tax structures for commercial products would likely be similar. Growing your own tobacco is perfectly legal, despite there being no tax on it.
Home production of tobacco is not practical. While growing the plant itself is no problem, it is difficult to age, cure, and process tobacco without special facilities. Practically no one does it, so no one saw a need to outlaw it; the bite it takes out of tax revenues is essentially nonexistent. Dope, on the other hand, can be grown in a closet and processed on a desk.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 11:06:30 AM
Shane- What I was getting at was CANADA never abolished slavery. It was never part of the Canadian experience, so it should never be associated with our history.
When I wrote earlier about drug smugglers not paying taxes, I was aware that the economy is not a function of the amount of taxes collected. I only meant to imply that taxes are the only way governments have to grade the health of the economy. Drug smuggling does not show up on any statistical reporting, anywhere. The money these crooks make is usually spent on other criminal pastimes, and is unlikely to make its way into legitimate businesses, or the pockets of honest citizens.
Posted by: dp | 2010-08-06 11:23:44 AM
Cannabis WILL be legal in Canada. The only ones against that are old fools, and nanny staters like mathews. The old fools will die off soon, and the nanny staters are greatly outnumbered. Just look at this forum or on any AM radio call in show that covers the topic. The call ins for legalization outnumber the submissives like mathews 10 to 1.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2010-08-06 12:02:31 PM
Slavery was so a part of the Canadian Experience- when Canadian pioneer hero Louis Herbert died of old age, and had seen his experiment with his friend Samuel de Champlain take form and succeed the New France colonists chipped in and purchased a black girl and gifted her his widow. That was Canadian slavery-- I think there is a receipt in the archives for the transaction of said femme noir
Yes in 1793 Slavery was banned in Canada - BOTH Upper & Lower Canadas-- by Royal decree, The dude who pulled that off was Gov Simcoe = sent to Canada to bring about a long list of reforms.He is remembered with a civic holiday in August..
Yes there was slavery in Canada prior to 1793..people buying people and working them without wages or freedom to leave the job. That's slavery- you were thinking maybe chains and whips? There was slavery going on in Canada from the beginning that Simcoe ended by Royal Proclamation in 1793
Now imagine if you will, slaves shoveling snow in Colonial Canada-- and delivered from bondage by an Elete Royalist White Male dominated Government.. your basic Super White Bread Conservative Christian Saxon Upper Class whatever-- cooler than most in the compassion Dept.. oh, & Gov Simcoe introduced a bounty for Hemp Cultivation in Canada at the same time he freed the slaves, so you can't accuse him of being non sustainable minded..
Canadian hemp produced by free men in a free land was superior in both quality and quantity to what the Americans were producing in their slave economy.
Posted by: 419 | 2010-08-06 12:16:51 PM
Shane Matthews:
1. Something like that. The CFIA has standards for fresh fruits, vegetables, and herbs regarding (among other things) chemical residues.
2. Then we agree that 24 hour "dial a dopers" are a minority. It follows that, for the majority of the pot purchasing populace, a 24 hour outlet would be a benefit as I originally stated.
3. So, your argument is that the average pot smoker is so unreasonable that they would murder their dealer over $12 of pot. I think I will let that fall on it's own merit.
4. Unreasonable and unjust laws erode public confidence in the legal system and create scofflaws. Changing those laws restores confidence in the system. Not everyone is as rigid in their mindset as you seem to be.
Again regarding growing:
A properly set up "grow op" is no more dangerous than the properly wired lights and bathroom fan in your house.
You are conflating the poorly wired, poorly ventilated, power stealing "grow ops" featured on the news with the safe indoor and outdoor gardens I am referring to. Keep in mind that an indoor garden to grow [insert licit plants of choice] is perfectly legal and that converting it to a "grow op" is as simple as starting with a different seed.
On a small (i.e., personal) scale, tobacco is processed and cured exactly the same way pot is: trim it, dry it, cure it in glass jars. No special facilities are needed. Any plant can be grown in a closet and processed on a desk. It's simply more common with pot because pot's legal status requires the operation to be hidden.
Posted by: MJ | 2010-08-06 12:29:05 PM
Actually, Greenthumb, I'm finding that support for legalizing cannabis is strongest among the old fools who smoked it back in the 60s and 70s. I expect the movement will fall apart once they start dying off. And only fools pin their hopes on online or broadcast polls.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 12:33:30 PM
What you say is true, dp. That's why it's essentially impossible to accurately estimate the size of the marijuana industry. The numbers being thrown around are sheer fantasy. The fact that people are comparing the legitimate economy to the criminal economy and deciding the criminal one is superior shows the quality of the reasoning at work in this area.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 12:37:50 PM
Most gentle Dr. Greenthumb
Cannabis has always been legal in Canada- but it is a controlled substance, You, like tens of thousands of other wipeheads tend to mix this up. We all know why this is, but we need not get into it right now.
How refreshing to see your predictions for legal cannabis in Canada here, once again without any proof whatsoever except that of a drugged up imagination simmering in cannabinoid overdrive.
Praytell, when will this legalization of what I can only assume is " recreational marijuana" in the Dominion of Canada actually begin? I am waiting here, with my red pencil and pocket calendar ready to circle the magic date..just tell us, we are so ready to believe.
in the meantime, you might wish to releive me of my excess cash by entering into a small gentleman's bet,, all that is required is that you clearly state when this blessed event will occur,. and when it happens I mail you the money, and suffer a lifetime of humiliation.How's that?
But, on the other hand if for some reason Canada fails to legalize "recreational marijuana" for whatever reason by the date you predict, you would be obliged to mail me the money and well, it was just one of those things, and there will be no pangs of humiliation required.
So let's just put down the blood stained ping pong paddles of war and bet on this national day of delivery to marijuana freedom that is so important to the Canadian economy and the Libertarian way of life ..say, $100.00 cash?
and what date, in your professional opinion, will this legalization of recreational marijuana be occuring? I have my red pencil ready.. just spell it out for the prohibitionist bully majority... we are so ready to believe.
May I suggest - not before Marc Emery returns alive to Canada after serving his US prison sentence? That's bound to be several years..
Or did you imagine legalization would be much sooner than that ?
Posted by: 419 | 2010-08-06 12:43:47 PM
Shane you still havnt answered the question , what are you afraid of, someone with your fear has a lot to lose if prohibition ends, quit blathering.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-06 12:45:22 PM
Shane if you are neither, then your nothing but a hate monger.As ive said earlier putting people in jail just to satisfy a freak like you. To see a criminal, you just have to look in the mirror .
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-06 12:49:45 PM
The question was, "which one are you , seller of drugs or are part of our corrupt justice system?" Not what I was afraid of. You're manufacturing presumed noncompliance out of total fiction. Lying, in other words. That's pretty pathetic, Don.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 12:51:49 PM
Shane if you are neither, then your nothing but a hate monger.
See? Even you admit that the question was an either/or, not a question of what I was afraid of. You can't even keep your own story straight. It's a virtuoso performance of pitifulness.
To see a criminal, you just have to look in the mirror.
To see why pot is still illegal, you just have to look in yours.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 1:15:39 PM
MJ,
1. Marijuana is not a foodstuff; it is a drug. I was referring to the fact that herbal medicines are currently unregulated and uninspected. The point is that marijuana would not necessarily be subject to such controls.
2. Just as we must agree that "24-hour convenience dope stores" would also be a minority, for much the same reason 24-hour liquor stores are currently a minority. This is the second in a row that's gone straight over your head. Are you being intentionally dense?
3. I think I will let the drug pushing and drug using communities' track record speak for itself. It's a sorry tale. That, and the idea that someone would actually trouble to put every product or foodstuff he purchases on a scale to see if he's been cheated.
4. There is no proof that this law is unreasonable or unjust, just unpopular among a demographic that is already known for its contempt for laws and authority. One does not equal the other. Now then.
A properly set up "grow op" is no more dangerous than the properly wired lights and bathroom fan in your house.
Neither is a properly set up and operated still.
You are conflating the poorly wired, poorly ventilated, power stealing "grow ops" featured on the news with the safe indoor and outdoor gardens I am referring to.
Is it reasonable to expect that a person chintzy enough to grow his own pot to skirt some taxes would spend a bundle on an electrician to do the work properly? Outdoor grows are of course safer but often require greenhouses, which most people don't have and certainly won't invest in just to avoid paying tax.
On a small (i.e., personal) scale, tobacco is processed and cured exactly the same way pot is: trim it, dry it, cure it in glass jars. No special facilities are needed. Any plant can be grown in a closet and processed on a desk. It's simply more common with pot because pot's legal status requires the operation to be hidden.
Actually, tobacco requires a controlled environment where it can be hung to dry and cure for at least a year. Pot can be dried in jars on a desktop and smoked in a matter of days. It's more common with pot because it's much easier, although of course the need to grow clandestinely plays a significant role. The tobacco plants themselves are pretty hardy though.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-06 1:17:03 PM
419-Canada was founded in 1867. What happened before that is not Canadian history. Slavery was never part of established Canadian practise. I suppose I should carry some personal guilt, since my family was established in these lands in 1783, but even so, it was not Canada, in its present form.
Posted by: dp | 2010-08-06 2:05:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.