Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

Yes, it's been in the works for years and a multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around recreational cannabis already. Canopy Growth was listed on the NYSE this year.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/WEED:CN

The irony of Brits saying these things specifically, is that they were one of the first to formally study the social effects of cannabis, as early as 1894 - and before all the Anslinger madness. Here's what they found - note the conclusion especially:

"In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. There may be exceptional cases in which, owing to idiosyncrasies of constitution, the drugs in even moderate use may be injurious. There is probably nothing the use of which may not possibly be injurious in cases of exceptional intolerance.

In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. It may indeed be accepted that in the case of specially marked neurotic diathesis, even the moderate use may produce mental injury. For the slightest mental stimulation or excitement may have that effect in such cases. But putting aside these quite exceptional cases, the moderate use of these drugs produces no mental injury.

In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. There is no adequate ground for believing that it injuriously affects the character of the consumer.

Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable. It has been the most striking feature in this inquiry to find how little the effects of hemp drugs have obtruded themselves on observation. The large number of witnesses of all classes who professed never to have seen these effects, the vague statements made by many who professed to have observed them, the very few witnesses who could so recall a case as to give any definite account of it, and the manner in which a large proportion of these cases broke down on the first attempt to examine them, are facts which combine to show most clearly how little injury society has hitherto sustained from hemp drugs."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission)

Under Wickard v. Filburn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

You can argue that it's not a reasonable interpretation - I would agree with that. But it is a long-standing one, and there are a lot of things that the feds do today that hinge pretty much solely on it - and that includes pet issues for both the left and the right. Just to give one example, aside from enabling the feds to ban weed, Wickard also enables the feds to enforce the Civil Rights Acts. So it is very unlikely for that interpretation to go away - there's too much staked on it politically.

> Obviously we want to restrict access as much as possible to particular drugs

It's not obvious to me. The fundamental question is, does an individual own their own body? If the answer is yes, then don't try to restrict what I can do with it so long as I don't harm anyone else. If the answer is no, well, then we need to firm up exactly what the arrangement is supposed to be.

I've never used, but even w/ health risks, it's better to legalize and decriminalize than send young mothers/fathers to jail and basically create cycle's of poverty.

One of the biggest demographics of poverty in America is single-mother's who's bf's are incarcerated usually for drug offenses, though of course some might be gang and other criminal offenses - but still a lot of that has drug related connotations.

If mj is regulated/sold openly then likely they won't be distributing on street corners and going to jail, or using and going to jail for possession, causing them to become even harder criminals by association and thus start life-long criminal careers, and giving up on being a good father, and provider.

My philosophy is let anyone ingest anything they want (Tide pods are still legal), if they're stupid enough to die or maim themselves -- people shoot firecrackers from their hand and doesn't always end well - people just do stupid shit, but it's their choice/freedom to do so. Until they step over the line and injure others as a result of their stupid actions, let them have that freedom and the government should step out.

The government should have help for those who need it to get into rehab/medical treatment and support those who want to get off hard drugs, but deal with it as a medical condition, not a criminal one. People should feel safe going to a hospital and saying I have a drug addiction and want to quit, please help me - without fear of going to jail.

The government can prosecute blackmarket sales though, all night/day, I'm cool w/ that, I feel the end-user's are victims even though they choose to 'buy', I don't think they should be at fault for being a 'consumer' of goods, those capitalizing on it should be the only ones charged.