291–300 of 342 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Many" but not nearly all. In Canada prisoners can and do vote.
I'm curious—would there be a way to comparatively analyze Canadian and American election results, to figure out whether prisoners' disenfranchisement has an impact on policy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least until April, a government website is the only legal way to buy pot in Ontario. Since they're selling it, they set the prices. In a lot of provinces the only legal way to get pot is through a government pot store. Alcohol works the same way; Ontario recently allowed the sales of wine & beer in some grocery stores, but everything else is at the LCBO, (government liquor stores), and the Beer Store, (which I thi…
The Beer Store is owned by two foreign-owned multinationals (the Belgian AB InBev and the American MolsonCoors). Not government run, but like many Ontario monopolies is has government in its pocket.
Yet they still have a near-monopoly on beer sales!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the thing is it's not really legal in WA, Federal law applies to WA. It's just not illegal at the state level any more.
Au contraire, that's my point - it is legal in the state of Washington, by the vote and actions of the people. Likewise, by the vote and actions of the people of British Columbia it is legal. But, to a political body 2000 miles away it is not. And, because they have a representative who stands in a little box separating those two groups who have voted and acted, it is somehow made illegal should he or she wish to har…
The people who live in Washington only decide a subset of the laws for the state. It is still illegal to possess or consume weed in Washington because WA is a part of the United States of America, where weed is illegal nationwide.
The "United States of America" as a political body is defined by the borders of the United States of America (within which WA is completely contained), it is not located in Washington DC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US border guards might deny you entry if you admit to previous cannabis use - for them "A confession is as good as a conviction" Why? Is it not just selling and possession but also the very act of smoking illegal in the USA? Are the USA citizens forced to follow the homeland laws wherever they travel even if the laws at where they are are different? It sounds like if they had to still drive the right sides of the r…
If you admit to smoking it, you must have been in possession of it.
How Canada interfaces with the rest of the world promises to be a bit screwy. For just one example, consider airline staff. Some Canadian airlines have already banned employees from using pot. Obviously, the general public doesn't want to fly with pilots that are high in more than one way. These airlines also have to operate in countries, like the U.S., where their employees could be detained or expelled for even adm…
Will it be terribly different than how US states that have legalized marijuana interface with federal governmental entities? Plenty of folks in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, some of the New England States, and California work for the federal government and have to tell them that they do not use marijuana. Similar with airline pilots, etc based out of these States.
Whereas they can't bar a US Citizen from re-entering the country.
Wow, some really interesting edge cases in there that require serious thought. US border guards might deny you entry if you admit to previous cannabis use - for them "A confession is as good as a conviction". So you can do something that is perfectly legal in Canada, then a month later be denied entry to the US for doing it. If you work at a 100% legal Government-run Cannabis store and want to go to the US for a holi…
> US border guards might deny you entry if you admit to previous cannabis use What? How? Why? That makes no sense.
Although I think weed should be legal, in the mean time I am not interested in my taxes paying for the confinement or deportation of Canadians. Ergo, one can support weed legalization and also believe that weed consumption can be used from a practical perspective to deny entrance to foreigners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's similar to the non-prosecution agreement mentioned in the Netherlands above not necessarily. in Oregon, it is tracked, taxed, and regulated. one can still grow their own and remove themselves from the tracking, but this is for personal consumption not for sale. there is still enforcement, and cooperation with the federal levels, specifically to help curb the black market and the problems that arise due to the…
The major practical difference to the average American citizen, is that the FDA is a federal organization, and so must still follow the federal ruleset when licensing drugs, even for products that will only be sold within a given state. If an Oregon pharmaceutical company wanted to try to put THC in a pill; do a study for its positive effects against, say, anxiety; and then get it bottled and sold at drug stores—they…
you are absolutely correct, but I was only addressing the note that state legalization is equivalent to looking the other way in the Netherlands, which was the opinion of OP.
I very much look forward to the research that Canadian companies are able to do, specifically with other cannabinoids other than thc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see a single reason why you can be forced to incriminate yourself. While thread didn't really get into citizenship, if you're aren't a citizen of the state in question you have no right of entry. The state has the right to ask for any information they wish and set criteria for entry as they wish. It's not a matter of "incrimination" as in you go to jail, it's a matter of obtaining permission for entry, you…
"if you're aren't a citizen of the state in question you have no right of entry." There's a huge racial component. Essentially all of this "you're not allowed to" talk is strictly for white people only.
1) It is racist to deny a non-citizen entry
2) Fuzzy rules for entry allow room for racial bias
3) Something else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Ignoring or refusing to answer the question is grounds for denying admission or being permanently denied admission.
You can just say "no". And smile. Will be completely correct on your part.
> You: "No"
If you have consumed in the last 30 days, then your "No" response is definitely not correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ways it's bad: 1) Helps being okay with being bored 2) Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, and, by my estimation, varying levels thereof 3) Cancer, and lung/heart disease, if you're dumb enough to light it on fire =] 4) Adrenal fatigue Still an incredibly useful substance.
And none of those happen if you have a chemical imbalance resulting in low endocannabinoid levels, because THC/CBD would just bring those levels back up to a baseline reference value, rather than pushing them into excess. (I.e., the same reason that people who have ADHD don't become manic when taking stimulant-class ADHD meds; while people who don't have ADHD, do.)
Don't light shit on fire, kids. Vaporize or eat!