
Canada legalises recreational cannabis use - pmoriarty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44543286
======
Cofike
I was born in Buffalo, no longer there due to lack of tech jobs (that isn’t
blue cross blue shield). The Canadian side of Niagara Falls already destroys
our side. Much more development. Way more activities to do. Gorgeous view of
the falls. All around better.

Now that weed is legalized this will only become more and more apparent. They
will attract more individuals from both sides of the border and I bet see much
more money coming in leading to more development, etc.

New York had missed out on this opportunity for years and by the looks of it
will continue to miss out.

~~~
0xcafecafe
Personally, I prefer the American side more. It has a more park like feel to
it where you can enjoy the falls while sitting on the lawn, away from car
honks and road noise. The Canadian side seems like an urban jungle with the
waterfalls take a side step to tall hotel buildings and casinos.

~~~
eumenides1
The Canadian side is relatively developed (vs american side) and an economic
engine (tourism, jobs, wines). Your parent commenter's point I believe is that
the federal/state/local government has failed the local people in investing
and developing a local economy in the area. Both sides have essentially the
same resources (the falls), but one side is doing better (economically) than
the other.

~~~
philipov
And the point made by (now) parent is that a preference for less resource
exploitation and economic development can be a lifestyle decision, not a
failure of governance. Not everyone wants to turn their town into a tourist
hub.

~~~
0xcafecafe
Thank you. That was what I was trying to say.

------
teekert
Funny story: I'm from the Netherlands and was 15 and on vacation in France.
All the kids smoked weed, which they got in the harbor. They were surprised I
never did it because it was legal in the Netherlands, all I could say was that
you had to be 18 to get it so I couldn't get it.

~~~
stabbles
It's not legal, it's tolerated in law
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedogen))

~~~
titanix2
I which it isn’t. I’ve seen a high school friend falling into that gradually:
he started speaking about cannabis to the point it became its only topic of
conversation. Then of course he hanged only with people with similar interest.
He became weird during the breaks and needed to smoke something, anything.
After that when I went to the university he became a small dealer. He got
enough money from that activity to rent an apartment and buy all the newest
gaming consoles. So he didn’t project himself into the future: no studies, no
saving. He finally got into debt because of his girlfriend not paying her part
of the rent. Sad story because it was not a dumb guy but the addiction makes
him made very bad life choices.

On the macro-scale, cannabis and others drugs are a big factor that fuels
France suburb separatism and in some case finance terror attacks. Sorhere is a
need for a real prohibition or for a legalization to stop this underground
economy.

~~~
fredley
Would making it illegal have prevented this?

~~~
tachyonbeam
I'm Canadian and I think legalization is the right choice, but I think there
is some dishonesty on both sides, which is doing everyone a disservice.

The anti-cannabis people will say it's a "gateway drug" and that it will
destroy your life, while some elements on the the pro-cannabis side would have
you believe it's some sort of panacea. The reality is that it can cause
intense anxiety and paranoia in some people, and some people do get addicted
to it. As with every other drug, you should tread carefully and have some
amount of self-awareness when using it.

PS: I hope that mushrooms will be made legal at some point. They show a lot of
promise for use as antidepressants.

~~~
fredley
Absolutely - this is an example case where the legal status of the drug I
don't think would have made a difference, the drug clearly had a profound
effect on this individual. Cannabis is by no means a safe drug (no drugs are
100% safe), but it does tend to get painted as either black or white by either
side. The politicisation of the issue makes it hard to have a rational
discussion around drug risks, and harms, especially in relation to each other
(e.g. cannabis is much safer than alcohol by most measures, especially when
not smoked). Almost all drugs also have benefits too, including alcohol and
even heroin - which has therapeutic benefit for the terminally ill in extreme
pain, for example.

Sadly we're a very long way away from a truly rational approach to drug use,
not least because we've spent the best part of a century making it a moral
issue.

(Mushrooms - one of the safest drugs - were legal in the UK, but were made
illegal a few years ago - amid moral panic).

~~~
senorjazz
> but were made illegal a few years ago - amid moral panic).

Everyone started to take the piss which didn't help. Big signs up in shops
"MAGIC MUSHROOMS FOR SALE". For years they had been available, under the
counter with no problems, but when it became blatant, the end was sure to
come.

~~~
fredley
Which just underlines the way that drug classification decisions are made in
the UK: not because there was an uptick in harm, but because it became
noticeable.

------
mmt
One of the topics that hasn't yet been mentioned (which surprises me,
especially for HN), which I believe I saw originally when this legalization
was still merely being proposed was how it would affect medical/pharmaceutical
research.

With such national legalization, an entire developed nation (with relatively
diverse genetic backgrounds, even) will be open to clinical trials.

Besides finally providing ammunition to topple the "no possible medical uses"
classification in the US (and presumably other countries), it may lead to
discoveries of properties of the lesser known chemicals in cannabis.

It may not, but the possibility is still likely to bring something of an
additional boost to Canada's biotech sector.

~~~
gwerbret
It turns out that cannabis is, and has been, extensively researched for years,
in Canada and elsewhere (researchers could apply for special access). Thanks
to this work, we know that there is one, exactly one robust, reliable clinical
application of a cannabis chemical that stands out: to treat otherwise hard-
to-treat childhood epilepsies. The chemical responsible for this is
cannabidiol, which is the most abundant non-psychoactive molecule found in the
cannabis plant. The other tested clinical applications include pain relief
(works great for some people against some types of pain, continually fails
clinical trials in most types of pain, not better than the standard of care),
nausea relief (not better than the standards of care), sleep (very variable
and low quality clinical data from multiple trials), inflammation (very
variable and low quality clinical data from multiple trials) and headache
(very variable data, etc). Most of this work has been done on the various non-
psychoactive chemicals in cannabis, popular and otherwise, since
tetrahydrocannabinol is kind of useless at clinically-relevant doses.

I think we'll find out in a few years that most of the hype around cannabis is
just, well, hype.

~~~
mmt
> (researchers could apply for special access)

I'm aware of the special access, and I'm even aware that it has resulted in
actual pharmaceuticals.

The problem with _special_ access is that it has a huge chilling effect. I
suspect only the very most motivated (and funded? or just politically
protected?) would attempt it.

What about semi-synthetics? I have to imagine it's easier to experiment with
synthesis if there's a robust, commercial market for the raw materials,
instead of just the special government hothouse (or however it works in the
particular jurisdiction).

> not better than the standard of care

I don't think I'd characterize that as a failure, if it's approximatey as
good. Even if it's worse but significantly better than placebo, that doesn't
seem like anything approaching a research dead-end.

Besides semi-synthetics, which would be a long and hard road, there's also
adjunct therapy, or did those studies actually include using cannabis
chemicals in addition to the standard ones?

> very variable and low quality clinical data from multiple trials

Any possibility that this was affected by actual or perceived stigma
surrounding the source of the chemical being studied? Participants worrying
about failing a drug test? (Does this law address that at all?)

> I think we'll find out in a few years that most of the hype around cannabis
> is just, well, hype.

That's an easy prediction to make about any hype, and I certainly agree. I
just think there's more to learn, even if it confirms the null hypothesis, and
this will take the foot off the brake in Canada.

~~~
gwerbret
To answer some of your questions, one reason why the area has seen so much
active research in the past 30 years -- and there's been a lot -- is that the
human cellular pathways that respond to cannabis are extremely far-reaching
and far more interesting. To this end, there has indeed been a great deal of
synthetic chemistry to experiment with and manipulate these pathways.

>Besides semi-synthetics, which would be a long and hard road, there's also
adjunct therapy, or did those studies actually include using cannabis
chemicals in addition to the standard ones?

Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studies,
which are usually blinded in some way to reduce stigma or bias. (If anything,
the bias tends to favor cannabis-consuming patients, since it's hard to hide
the fact that the pill you just took in a "blinded" clinical trial is making
you high.)

A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here:
[https://www.cancer.gov/about-
cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabi...](https://www.cancer.gov/about-
cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq) .

~~~
mmt
>A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here

Thanks! That looks extremely informative, and I only had a chance to skim
through it so far.

I couldn't help but notice how many (at least half) of the referenced studies
were in the past 10 years. That does suggest to me that changing attitudes
have more to do with it than legalization.

> Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studies,
> which are usually blinded in some way to reduce stigma or bias. (If
> anything, the bias tends to favor cannabis-consuming patients, since it's
> hard to hide the fact that the pill you just took in a "blinded" clinical
> trial is making you high.)

I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an
otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable
results (and/or fewer negative side effects)? Or that such a patient would
more likely receive actually better benefits? Or that they would be more
likely to be in the trial in the first place?

Are there clinical trials where the participants don't know what (potential)
active therapy they could get is? The ones I've looked at in the US have
always said, but I've only looked at a couple very specific conditions.

~~~
gwerbret
>I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an
otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable
results (and/or fewer negative side effects)?

In cases in which the active agent is THC or a similarly psychoactive agent,
patients are indeed more likely to report positive overall effects simply
because they know they're receiving the active agent; i.e. the placebo effect.
This would apply whether they've used cannabis before or not. You don't have
this problem with trials of the non-psychoactive cannabis chemicals, which
fortunately is most trials.

~~~
mmt
That certainly makes sense with THC, and ties back to your earlier remark
about clinically significant quantities of it.

For some studies, I've seen reference to using an active placebo (so the
placebo group feels _something_ ), but I realize that can pollute the side
effects data, and it may be useless for psychoactives where the effect is
publically well-known.

------
toomanybeersies
Meanwhile in Britain, the former leader of the Conservative Party, William
Hague, spoke out and claimed that the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly
lost".

He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out
legalisation or even decriminalisation [1].

I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation
would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisation has
been a success. It's the same blinkered thinking as the anti-gay marriage
politicians claiming that it will cause the breakdown of families, or
politicians claiming that universal healthcare in the USA clearly wouldn't
work.

Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was
intended to achieve. It has cost governments trillions of dollars and
incarcerated millions, funded terrorism and civil wars, and caused the deaths
of millions of people from both violence and drug related harm. Plus the harm
caused by the demonisation of drugs that have potentially powerful positive
effects as part of psychiatric treatment such as LSD and MDMA. All due to some
concept that taking "recreational drugs" is a moral failing and hence should
be illegal.

At least society in genera has finally come around to realise that drug
addiction and drug use are not moral failings (although my parents aren't
quite convinced).

Obviously we want to restrict access as much as possible to particular drugs,
such as heroin or methamphetamine, which are so harmful and addictive that
nobody should be using them, or GHB, where the potential for fatal overdose is
so high. But penalising the end user is not the solution. People who want to
take drugs will take drugs. I have never met somebody who has decided to not
take a drug because it's illegal. Whether it was alcohol when underaged,
smoking a joint, injecting heroin, or snorting cocaine. I know plenty of
people who don't take drugs as a personal choice or because they get drug
tested at work, but never was the law a reason why the abstained. It doesn't
restrict supply either. Drugs are easy to find and readily available
practically everywhere in the world, all that prohibition does is push up the
price, fund criminals, and increase harm due to poor quality control and cut
drugs.

[1] [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
politics-44526156](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44526156)

~~~
bitL
We already have many problems caused by alcohol and cigarettes, costing
taxpayers billions in unnecessary expenses. I get it, people need to escape
reality they live in. We know that some weed smokers end up schizophrenic and
that in general smoking weed weakens one's will, so in many cases we end up
with grown up children going only after the things attainable by easiest
efforts. There are also some legit medical uses that might help a wide range
of disorders; those are fine regulated the same way as medical heroin or
amphetamines are. However, why open another Pandora's box, add another bunch
of disorders to the open, inviting people that would have never used them
before, causing them issues? Nobody knows how would their genetic makeup
respond to even first absorption of a drug. I.e. the minimal requirement of
justice in preventing harm to innocents would be violated.

If you however like post-justice post-truth world, then anything goes. Why not
accept all hard drugs, all sexual deviations, all violent or manipulative
behaviors then? It's natural anyway, observed in animals daily, isn't it? The
hard line must be placed somewhere, or not?

~~~
pennaMan
Pandora's box was opened by the first sprouting seed of Cannabis on earth. The
prohibition came after, so if anything we're talking about a pre-justice
world, aren't we?

>Why not accept all hard drugs, all sexual deviations, all violent or
manipulative behaviors then?Why not accept all hard drugs, all sexual
deviations, all violent or manipulative behaviors then?

Because those things cause falsifiable and measurable harm to society.
Cannabis use is by all measures benign while its prohibition actually causing
real harm.

~~~
bitL
> Because those things cause falsifiable and measurable harm to society.
> Cannabis use is by all measures benign while its prohibition actually
> causing real harm.

There are unfortunately people that could be damaged by smoking weed,
irreversibly, if their schizophrenia proclivity gets activated. Also the easy
escape from problems is not in society's best interest - see the ongoing
shaming for gaming, where boys are pushed into the "real world" to get some
society-benefiting work done instead of them having more fun.

We usually have 1-2 generations that act as guinea pigs on effects of new
inventions or discoveries. The wild time with LSD, heroin etc. is thankfully
over. Not sure why would we want to backtrack on cannabis, even if it is
objectively less harmful. Alcohol & cigarettes are objectively less harmful
than heroin etc. but we would be better off without them.

~~~
courtneycouch0
> There are unfortunately people that could be damaged by smoking weed,
> irreversibly

Perhaps peanuts should be made illegal. There are people that can be
irreversibly damaged by consuming peanuts.

If we’re goi to be consistent and ban or regulate substances because there
might be harm to an incredibly small minority then sadly there would be very
very few legal foods, medications, etc. hell we should probably ban strobe
lights as well.

On another note you’d probably be disappointed to hear research and use of
hallucinogenic substances has been on a sharp rise. So it seems those wild
times you’re fearful of are returning.

~~~
bitL
> wild times you’re fearful of are returning

I am not really fearing them for the sake of myself (well, except for the rise
of violence/poverty they might cause). I can actually benefit from it myself
by estimating what junkies would be willing to pay for and moving my
e-commerce business into that direction, like what many are cynically doing
now with older women and pet food. But I pity them, would rather see people
achieving their full potential instead of getting their quick fix and wasting
rest of the day on silly things. I just think by enabling (even if lighter)
drugs, it would have profound effect on progress of our civilization, meaning
no advanced space travel ("flying saucers"), no more improved physics, no
faster computers, because if everybody is happy from smoking the weed, content
with their life, why would they want to push frontiers of civilization? And
frankly, I don't want to see USA/Europe end up as India, that has strong
historic traditions of hallucinogens intervowen with their culture, together
with tantric Buddhism suspected as the main reason of their millennium-long
decline and abhorrent societal divisions.

~~~
courtneycouch0
I think you’re making some quite wild assumptions about motivation and impact
of the use of various substances.

If you looked at those that literally are making those profound advancements
you’re worried about losing, you’d also often be looking at those that
moderately and recreational partake in some of these substances.

The people that partake but still excel aren’t as visible as those that don’t
get themselves off the couch. You mistakingly assume that it’s purely about
escapism and wasting away as a result.

I think you’d be quite surprised at the number of successful, motivated people
that don’t feel the need to get a “quick fix” that partake.

Many find it helps creativity for example (and research backs this up). If
you’re going to put any stock in research then the assumptions your making
about motivation and impact simply doesn’t jive with what’s being observed.

It’s all beside the point anyway. Ultimately we have to decide what the role
of the government has in regulating things like this and what metrics it uses
to decide. Whatever those are they should be consistent. From my point of view
though they’ve been anything but that. With so many prescription drugs being
more addictive, more deadly, and often with fewer potential benefits than
substances that are restricted even from research it’s hard to reason about.

The majority of the drug policy is less about the science (both medical and
social) and more about perception and politics.

A quick aside. If it’s escapism you have an issue with then really the entire
entertainment industry should be in your laser sights. Capitalism definitely
has a strong embrace of promoting and capitalizing on escapism. Drugs are
hardly a significant contributor here.

 _EDIT_ forgive the rambling nature of the post.

~~~
bitL
I think it's inevitable we research what exactly drugs do to people as science
progresses; I am strictly against exposing the whole population to it though.
What I would be in favor of is to give _adults_ a choice to take those drugs
for 20-30 years but require them to be enrolled into a health monitoring
system so that the effects could be researched properly and then an informed
judgement be made (only for those persons that don't posses known risk
factors). So removing the stigma of "junkies" by willing participation
(license + mandatory insurance?), regulate it on manufacturing side, but also
place an obligation on users to provide some benefit to society as well in
better understanding of how human body works. Of course, there would be
automatic limitations imposed like participation in sport competitions, high-
risk jobs etc.

And ramblings are fine, it's always refreshing to read somebody's unfiltered
opinion; even in disagreement it sometimes removes some innate tunnel vision
;-) I agree with what you've written about escapism.

~~~
courtneycouch0
I think that’s a legitimate approach. Though I personally think all substances
should be decriminalized (rather than legalized) as in the case of things like
heroin addiction the addicts fear of punishment and the stigma keeps people
from seeking help and ultimately we should want them to seek help.

Alcoholism would exist with or without alcohol being illegal, the only
difference would be that drinking alcohol would be more dangerous for those
wishing to drink responsibly and those drinking irresponsibly would have less
options to become well.

Regarding these other substances though I wholeheartedly agree real research
is needed. It’s one of the really tragic things about the war on drugs
actually, that research was completely stopped. Even if you keep a substance
illegal, researchers should still be allowed to investigate these things.
There’s life changing non mind altering treatment for cluster headaches for
example that has been nearly impossible to research until recently and even
still it’s never going to see the light of day in this political climate
around drug paranoia even though it has zero mind altering impacts (it’s a
chemical related to lsd where they modified to remove the altering effect).

I’m pretty ok with substances being banned (albeit not my preference) in
general as long as research is allowed to continue and the ban persists based
on information produced from that research. I.E. it’s not based on fear
mongering but science.

Another aside, one of the main reasons I think decriminalization (for all) and
legalization (for some) is pretty compelling is that it makes it a lot easier
to regulate to ensure the products themselves are safe. A large number of the
safety issues simply comes from people obtaining unsafe/fake products. Though
regulation you have consistency. Nowadays with recreational marijuana you can
see the lab report for every single product. Back in the day you just had to
rely on some shady character telling you “it’s good”.

People are going to be doing these things, keeping them illegal in the way we
have been (serious jail times for personal possession) only creates more harm
and cost to society rather than alleviate it (the supposed goal). The war on
drugs has created a quite insane cost through mandatory minimums and three
strikes laws.. if the goal was to reduce cost to society we’d have saved money
providing government supplied drugs to addicts. If the goal is to “save” or
prevent harm to addicts, locking them up and making them felons seems to be
having the opposite effect. They fear seeking help, and once caught up in our
penal system it’s hard to escape.

So what part of criminalization is really benefiting us?

------
moistoreos
Canada now has a huge head start in the West for business to develop
legitimate markets that will have a strong hold for decades. I wonder how many
U.S. businesses will move because of this. We all know where the money will
be.

~~~
refurb
California, where marijuana is now legal since last year, has a greater
population than all of Canada.

Related to that, each Canadian province has the ability to further regulate
marijuana (within guidelines). Thus, there isn't one Canadian market, but a
bunch of smaller markets.

~~~
mikec3010
I wonder about climate too. CA has way better weather to grow almost anything
as evidenced by it's agriculture industry. I would expect Canada's grow season
to be much shorter. And obv weed grows well under grow lights, but that costs
money so I would expect California to have major economic advantage.

~~~
beat
It's much easier to get quality control in a closed environment than outdoors.
And _legal_ marijuana is driven strongly by quality as a market force.
_Illegal_ marijuana, on the other hand, is more about volume than quality,
particularly when you consider interdiction-based losses of entire crops or
shipments. So outdoors makes a lot of sense.

------
chx
I have a very simple world view which, I guess, could be considered a
radically liberal one: everyone can do as they please as long as it doesn't
tread on the same rights of another person. You want to inject, snort or sniff
something? Go ahead! It's your body, after all. Neither I, nor any government
should have anything to say about this. Obviously, you should not operate a
vehicle while intoxicated and we need to have a conversation on who pays how
much for health care -- but are we going to punish obese people too...? So
that's a more complicated conversation but in itself no drug use should be
criminal.

Along these lines I only have one question: why only cannabis? (I am
Canadian.)

~~~
schrectacular
Isn't there some friction here with regards to nationalized health care?
Society at large will pay for the poor health decisions of individual
citizens.

~~~
elif
If cannabis use results in higher health costs.

However, the preponderance of research suggests a null hypothesis at worst and
a reduction in cancer rates and opiate dependency at best.

~~~
dgacmu
And more: If it results in higher health care costs than the savings realized
in law enforcement, judicial proceedings, and prisons.

------
itchyjunk
I wonder how many state has to legalize it before the federal government in
USA is forced to change their classification. It seems like more and more
state will legalize it over time anyways.

~~~
Tiktaalik
States starting to legalize it was likely a big part of why the Canadian
government became comfortable with the idea of legalizing it. The idea of
legalization, or at least decriminalization, has been floating around in
Canada since the 90s, but a major talking point against the idea has been that
it would compromise Canada's relationship with the USA. Obviously as internal
parts of the USA are legalizing it this is no longer so much of a concern.

~~~
cageface
I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent breakdown in US-Canada
relations? Maybe the Canadians are less concerned with offending us now?

~~~
emilr
This is the result of a campaign promise made in 2015.

~~~
echlebek
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](https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/WEED:CN)

------
whazor
This makes Canada the most advanced cannabis country! I remember reading in a
Dutch news paper that Dutch weed growers were jealous of experiments in USA.
The Dutch system does not allow growing and daily there is a rollup of a farm.
Legalisation allows for cleaner products, new kind of products (drinkable),
and other practises that professional businesses can perform.

Cannabis legalisation will eventually be more and more adopted in other
countries, being the first allows you to own the market.

~~~
1over137
Well, Netherlands has edibles in its cafes, whereas Canada is not allowing
edibles in the new regime (yet).

~~~
ihsw2
Which is unfortunate because cannabis edibles are the most accessible way to
consume it in privacy and without the odor or smokey exhaust.

There is research on THC-infused drinks that match the alcoholic beverage
experience in time-to-inebriation and the duration of inebriation. Current
methods of cannabis consumption stretch the experience out over a long period,
which naturally is unfeasible for restaurant venues and the like.

~~~
3pt14159
They're going to allow it, but they want to make sure that the dosages are
predictable. Right now the edibles black market in Canada is very
unpredictable. Something marked as 200 could be as high as 500.

------
sdruskat
Clutch predicted this in 2004: "Everybody move to Canada, smoke lots of pot,
everybody move to Canada right now!" (Clutch, "The Mob Goes Wild", Blast
Tyrant. DRT: 2004)
[https://youtu.be/XDCNJtK6XkE](https://youtu.be/XDCNJtK6XkE)

And seriously, there is obviously a massive commercial interest in legalized
marijuana, hence we'll see more and more moves in that direction. The
correlation with de-demonization (and de-criminalization!) of 'organic' drugs
and widening of personal liberties is a side-effect, albeit a welcome one.

~~~
mgbmtl
Medical cannabis exists since 2001, then there were attempts to decriminalize
(not legalize) recreational cannabis in 2003 and 2004, but both times died off
because it could not pass in time before the end of the legislative session.

However, it was followed by a 12 year Conservative government, sometimes a
minority government, so nothing happened federally, but there were many
provincial court cases that helped change how the laws were being applied.

------
okonomiyaki3000
What is the correlation between countries with partially privatized penal
systems and strong drug laws? Yes, I realize that drugs have been illegal
longer than prisons have been privately run in most cases but prison
privatization is a factor in keeping them illegal, is it not?

As far as I can tell, Canada has not privatized their penal system.

------
agumonkey
I wonder how police forces will react.. imagine spending a lot of time
checking people and probably dealing with tensions and now no more controls,
all is fine (sic)

~~~
cal5k
Possession has been sort of de-facto decriminalized in Canada for many years -
police just don't enforce the law.

~~~
atheriel
This is only true in major metro areas -- that is, Montreal, Vancouver and
Toronto. Most smaller cites/towns or rural regions are far less tolerant.

(In fact, differential enforcement by regional police departments was one of
the more compelling arguments in favour of decriminalization.)

------
toastermoster
I'm visiting Toronto and nobody here at the bar had heard this yet.

~~~
gschier
It's essentially "legal" in Canada already so no one really cares about it
that much.

~~~
alexc05
Oh no... now that it is legal, a number of the publicly traded cannabis
companies will be able to actually start selling the product they’ve been
stockpiling over the last year.

Everything we’ve seen for estimates is that even then, we’re only going to
meet 50% of the demand.

Canopy Growth Corp, CBW, Aphira, Abcann... there are actually dozens of them
and they’re going to be in for a good year for now and (hopefully) tremendous
growth as well.

Some people care very much.

~~~
compcoffee
> _a number of the publicly traded cannabis companies will be able to actually
> start selling the product they’ve been stockpiling over the last year_

Can you link to anything that says Canada is going to allow uninhibited access
to the market from these companies? Currently they are licensed for medicinal
use only.

I'm skeptical. The government is not going to mint pot billionaires. It will
be tightly controlled.

------
0x4d464d48
Yep. Glad we finally put this tired horse to bed.

------
kentf
Lots of Canadian tech companies hiring folks :) Come work with me at Hubba and
take on Alibaba. @kentf on twitter.

------
jeisc
not everyone can take the hypocrisy of our human society and some of them will
turn to substance abuse to put there heads in the sand and carry on with their
existance

------
megaman22
Having enjoyed a few edibles in Amsterdam, weed products are fantastic. The
sense of non-anxiety is infectious. I would pay handsomely for that few fucks
to give.

~~~
thisacctforreal
Conversely, a subset of the population may experience weed-induced psychosis.

I experience it while high, so I only take a toke or two irregularly. I might
feel as if I'm experiencing the pain of a broken leg, or that my foot is
bleeding, as well as more abstract things. It also grants some introspection
and lateral thinking so its not a bad time.

I've heard higher amounts of CBD can counteract this, but I just mooch from
friends who regularly smoke, and all their weed is high in THC / low in CBD.
When its fully legal in my province I'll try a high CBD strain.

Either way I'm excited for the neurological research to come out of Canada
from legalization :)

~~~
Fifer82
Is "weed-induced psychosis" an actual bad thing? Of course it sounds terrible,
but do people jump out of windows, or rake their throat out scratching an itch
that isn't there? Is it dangerous or just one of those things? A Nut allergy
for example?

~~~
thisacctforreal
I'm not sure. It's definitely not comfortable, and sometimes the
thoughts/delusions are more advanced than phantom physical pain.

My first experience with weed was a couple of years ago, and there was
paranoia from the get-go. My dad also got paranoia when he tried it so he
stopped.

When I started smoking weed for the first time semi-regularly (~1.5 years ago,
0-4 times per week) I had become "pretty crazy", which consisted of lots of
notes, voice memos, and screenshots of the notes and voice memos.

The outright-crazy stuff mostly ended about a couple months after I stopped
living in my car, which I had to do because of the and it getting down to -19C
at night. Within the past year I haven't been near the deep-end, but my weed
use has been off and on between regularly (3-7 times per week), semi-regularly
(0-4), and zero. I consistently experience paranoia/psychosis whenever I get
high, but it generally isn't harmful, and is sometimes silly. My friends put
up with it.

However very recently for 6 days, I lived in a cruel reality that existed in
my head. It was caused by a long-term (2 yr) long-distance (6 mnth)
codependent girlfriend who can be a capable and stubborn liar. Thankfully the
extent of the terrible things I believed happened didn't actually happen–she
didn't even make it to cheating on me, let alone the malicious delusions I
experienced–and she happened to have suitable proof. If she hadn't I might
still be in that reality.

I think the episode was more to do with how she shattered trust, and some
coincidental events during the 6 days, but I believe my weed usage helped my
brain to create the complex unimaginable scenarios, then experience the pain
fully. For a handful of hours in those 6 days I was close to tell-no-one
suicide, after a history of suicidal behaviour.

I'm happy to be in this reality as of a little less than 2 weeks ago, I'm also
glad that I endured and survived that pain. I've become a lot stronger, more
peaceful, and I feel that I have turned many corners with mental illness which
I hadn't faced in the past–though perhaps I can credit that to a deeper dive
into Buddhism and to the end of the codependency. We were about to restart our
warm embrace the day she anchored me to this timeline, but per some timely
advice from her friend we took a step back and ended it.

Whether or not the psychosis is temporary, or whether it causes early-onset
schizophrenia is an area I'm excited to see more research on. It's definitely
not as black-and-white as many people paint it out to be, and talking about
any potential downsides of the drug is sometimes met with stigmatism because
you're "falling for the propaganda".

One aspect of weed legalization is going to be psychosis in a subset of people
who use it, and it's not exactly a safe phenomenon. There were definitely
paths during my bouts with weed that don't lead to being here like this today.
At the same time I'm grateful for the experiences it has given me, and the
lateral thinking it has granted me.

Here's a good article I found, "Pot Can Trigger Psychotic Symptoms For Some,
But Do The Effects Last?" [2015] [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2015/03/06/3901436...](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2015/03/06/390143641/pot-can-trigger-psychotic-symptoms-for-some-but-do-
the-effects-last)

For Buddhism I've been slowly reading Siddhartha over the past few weeks, and
Tales Of Times Now Past off and on over the past year.

I wouldn't generally write such a long, personal comment, but we're neatly
away on the second page.

------
TheArcane
> The country is the second worldwide to legalise the drug's recreational use.

What about the Netherlands?

~~~
cr1895
It's not legalized in the Netherlands. It's not criminalized due to an
official stance of tolerance.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedogen)

It's complicated, and there's a lot of nuance to the Dutch model, but it is
distinctly different from what you have now in Canada and in numerous US
states.

~~~
TheArcane
That wiki link has a great example:

"To give an example in layman's terms: a mother may tell her child he can't
have cookies from the cookie jar. The father, regardless of his beliefs, can't
tell the child it's okay to have a cookie as that would result in a conflict
with the mother. If the father sees the child taking a cookie anyway, he may
choose not to say anything. He may not want to punish or stop the child but
can't condone the behaviour either. The father may act as if nothing had
happened to avoid a conflict with both his beliefs and the mother. He
"gedoogs" the behaviour."

------
dstjean
?

~~~
noarchy
Technically Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada. Her titles elsewhere don't mean
anything. Otherwise, she does indeed have to give royal assent, which will be
done via the Governor General.

~~~
Waterluvian
Best to think that she just happens to be the queen of a bunch of things, not
that those things all share the same queen.

------
exogeny
I despise getting involved in threads like this, because they always descend
into whataboutism ("Oh, but alcohol is worse!, etc.), but here we go with my
anecdotal evidence.

Me, personally, not a huge fan. I dabbled and experimented like a good chunk
of Americans, decided it wasn't for me. Not necessarily because I didn't enjoy
it - although I was involved in quite a bit of team sports at the time and was
worried about the health impacts - but because I saw the impact it was having
on friends of mine.

YMMV (of course), but I simply saw too many ambitious, energetic people
suddenly become very boring, and very comfortable with doing nothing. I have
absolutely no doubt that it's a drug with tons of applications medicinally to
treat everything from glaucoma to social anxiety to PTSD, but for purely
recreational purposes, it appeared to be quite damaging and "Oh, alcohol is
too!" just isn't a strong enough argument for me to be celebrating
recreational legalization.

~~~
ttul
It’s not about whether using cannabis is a good idea. It’s about whether
having it be a severe criminal offense is a good way to discourage use. That
approach quite obviously hasn’t worked, and has resulted in various serious
externalities such as criminal enterprises.

~~~
OskarS
I think that this point gets a bit lost, though: I wholeheartedly support
cannabis legalization (for all the good reasons we're all aware of) but it
seems like in every discussion of the issue people act like smoking cannabis
is a perfectly healthy past-time. It's not, it's clearly unhealthy.

That doesn't mean it should be illegal (lots of unhealthy stuff is legal!),
but it does mean that it's a very good idea to avoid it.

------
readhn
What do we do about heroin/opiods that are the real problem today? Cheap,
highly addictive. Multiple overdoses today in my local news feed reported....
:(

You cant overdose and die from MJ use (or its highly unlikely).

This whole war on drugs thing feels like a game of smoke and mirrors...

~~~
tghw
Legalize cannabis. Opioid deaths have dropped here in Colorado since
legalization.

~~~
p1mrx
Are individuals successfully transitioning from opioids to cannabis, or does
legalization primarily affect the ratio of new users?

------
djhaskin987
A sad and unfortunate trend.

~~~
danbolt
What makes you feel that the trend is sad? I often feel like the laws
regarding recreational cannabis are quite more strict than they need be, but
I’d be curious to hear your point of view?

------
bjourne
Should any substance which enhances the risk of schizophrenia be legalized?
[https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317170.php](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317170.php)
It appears to me that if cannabis was a food additive with the same risk
profile, no one would think it should be legal.

I understand that the counter-argument is "What about tobacco/alcohol?" But
those substances are already legal and there are no "equal opportunities"
rights for drugs. Like if artificial sweeteners were invented today, they
would either be banned or there would be harsh restrictions on how food
producers could use them.

Yes, tobacco kills a lot of people. But as many health experts think letting
the tobacco companies sell cigarettes was one of _the greatest mistakes of the
20th century_ , I fail to see how that is an argument. We fucked up once, so
we need to do it again?

~~~
lovich
Alcohol has a risk of brain damage[1]. Acetaminophen increases the risk of
liver damage and death [2]. There's an argument that we shouldn't allow risky
chemicals, but if were being consistent then the risk of schizophrenia from
pot use is right up there with the risks of lots of legal, over the counter
chemicals

[1][https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/types-
dementia/...](https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/types-
dementia/alcohol-related-brain-damage)
[2][https://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm168830.h...](https://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm168830.htm)

~~~
paulddraper
Yep. Think about all the US gun deaths you hear about (34k): homicides,
suicides, law enforcement. [1]

Then realize that alcohol's death toll is more than _twice_ that (88k): liver
disease, drunk driving, domestic abuse. [2]

And tobacco is yet again over _five_ times deadlier than alcohol (480k for
smoking). [3]

It is insane how many Americans die due to injesting poisonous substances.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States)

[2] [https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-
co...](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-
consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics)

[3]
[https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm)

