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 admitting to have used pot in the past. Being able to look foreign gatekeepers in the face and deny having ever used a product that's legal in your native country is now a necessary job requirement for some.
On the bright side, we could finally get some quality data on the health impacts of pot, now that trials and surveys can be done without potentially incriminating anyone. Like practically every other fun thing in existence it's probably very bad for you. We just don't know how... yet.
Canada taxes alcohol at a rate of over 50% in most provinces. The initial tax rates for pot will be much lower, but should increase steadily year-over-year. Alcohol taxes continue to rise every year. This is going to be a huge cash cow for the Canadian government, and I can't imagine other countries not wanting to get in on the action once they see how much Canada will be raking in.
This is not so different from being arrested for having drunk alcohol at the UAE border. (In this case, alcohol supplied by the Dubai airline.)
edit: not saying I agree with Dubai's policies.
I've been to Dubai Airport and had a pint. No problem. There's bars all over the place. Even an official Heineken bar.
Just don't act like an ass and you'll be fine.
The backstory being "Don't be a woman in UAE"?
>I've been to Dubai Airport and had a pint. No problem.
O, selective enforcement, the glorious ideal all other countries' legal systems should aspire to!
Regarding pilots, Transport Canada, the governing body over federal aviation regulations has explicitly come out and said use of Canabis is valid grounds for a revoked medical certificate, which is required for any pilot to fly. While the airline rules are one thing, this is a very serious implication for pilots.
In Canada cannabis has become legal in a manner similar to alcohol, making the difference.
Colorado (where I live) has done so for 4 years, and California, Nevada, to name a few, have followed suit.
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 black market.
one example of a difference would be the airport - you can fly in Oregon with cannabis, as long as you are under the legal limit to carry and are flying within the state (not crossing any borders). if the TSA (federal employees) are concerned about how much you are carrying or that you are not old enough, they will detain you long enough for local authorities to check, then release you and whatever legal amount you have with you to fly (if you are over the limit, you are asked to dispose of it, much like having too much liquid in your carry-on).
this differs quite a bit to pre-legalization, where non-prosecution was more likely if you were white and in a larger city such as Portland.
the limits are for federal property, which falls under federal law, crossing borders, which again falls under federal law, and black market activities, which are illegal under state laws, and likely include crossing of borders or federal land (quite a lot of forests in the United States are federally owned).
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 still wouldn't be able to, because, even if the government of Oregon would love for them to do so, the Oregon state legislature isn't responsible for allowing or disallowing that to happen.
Whereas, if a Canadian pharmaceutical company now wants to attempt to get a cannabis byproduct licensed for prescription or OTC usage in Canada, they now totally can.
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.
Basically don't cross an international border with weed.
From the above article "This is the case even if you are travelling to places like The Netherlands or Uruguay that have decriminalized or legalized cannabis."
Cannabis is not explicitly mentioned in the regulations and is lumped in with any drug, legal or not, that can cause impairment.
Get the feeling it will pass unnoticed, like many regulations that don't make sense it's far easier to let it slide rather than change the rules.
It's a similar situation to National Park Rangers: there are so many people willing to do the job that wages are very low.
Edit: I'm not a pilot, just a kid that never grew up and likes airplane stuff...
The problem is they've got to play this game very carefully right now as the black market is still well established and providing to many people.
They need to both drop prices (which should happen once more supply spins up) and start raiding illegal dispensaries and mail order shops if they want to convince people to stay in the legal system. From what I've seen on reddit - we need to see a significant price drop and potentially quality improvement before many existing regular users will be convinced to switch.
All medical cannabis in Canada has been shipped via Canada Post for almost two decades, and the same set of producers are handling recreational supplies. Extending this to recreational seems like a straightforward way to get things started.
Not talking about someone who buys an ounce and sells 3/4 so they get a 1/4 for free, but those doing it as a business, making good money.
About 15 years ago used to grow and sell in the UK, nothing too major, about 1 to 2kg a month would get cropped every month of the year. If the option presented itself to pay tax on the profit in order to remove the hassle and fear or banking the money I would have taken the hit of lost profit in a heart beat.
Is this not being offered to existing growers / suppliers / dealers? I can understand perhaps not as a long term solution, but as a transition period
Whereas they can't bar a US Citizen from re-entering the country.
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.
(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!
Doesn't this already exist from other countries where it's been legal for decades?
As far as I know Canada is only the second country in the world (after Uruguay) to actually fully legalize recreational cannabis.
There is no other country in the world where marijuana has been legal for decades.
However, that doesn't mean that research into the effects of marijuana doesn't happen, including in the U.S. Marijuana is actually one of the most well-studied drugs in existence - we have a much clearer understanding of the short- and long-term effects of marijuana than we do of almost every commercially-produced pharmaceutical on the market.
It would be a solution for the current American opioid crisis, but implementing such measures there would be political suicide.
I laughed way too hard at this for some reason.
To hear my uncle tell it, I've got some _really_ bad news for Canadians about the prevalence of alcoholism amongst pilots.
According to him, something like 1/8th of them are some level of drunk while flying.
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 holiday, you "Could be found admissible". could!
When arriving by air into Canada you will be asked about previous Cannabis use. What? They don't ask about previous alcohol use, why do they for what is now perfectly legal Cannabis?
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.
Are you the Cory Klein in Minnesota (with whom I went to college)?
Nope, although there are less than 50 Cory Kleins in the United States, so hooray for unlikely probabilities!
That was already the (insane) case. Consider people who live in the Netherlands, or Czechia, or Portugal.
I think it's quite a misconception about Czechia being super weed friendly. As a tourist you are most probably going to get scammed on streets of Prague. If you want to feel more free about weed consumption Netherlands is the place to go to.
Further tangent: at least part of it has been "die Tschechei" in German since 1918 per the Wiktionary and that's certainly the word people used in West Germany in the 80's, and I believe it's used widely today despite "Tschechien" being official.
The Wikipedia article (in German) suggests Tschechei is from Čechy which seems to be Czech for Bohemia. But I am not Czech nor Cseh nor tschechisch nor Čech so I may soon stand corrected. :-)
So if you hear someone using a country name you've never heard before, I can understand being cautious about adopting it :)
And if you obviously have no clue what you're doing and don't even try to buy a drink, they'll definitely know you aren't a cop and offer you the weed.
It's not technically legal in any of those countries.
What? How? Why? That makes no sense.
You are correct that the US border policy with Canada doesn't make any sense.
Canadians are being denied entry into the US simply for what the US deems to be "immoral behavior".
That is a very slippery subjective slope to be on.
Even having investments in Cannabis stocks can get you barred for life.
Do you know where your mutual funds go at night...
You can have a criminal conviction and still vote, for example.
The second time I got detained was only for 5 hours though. The second time I went in mid to late 20s by myself. After searching my car for 3 hours, they didn't find anything and I was let go.
I hate it.
We had to sit for about an hour and she had to go through a bunch of questioning but eventually they let us all through.
Every time tho I've had my car searched, it's too much of a hassle really to bother with going up there anymore for me personally.
If you're coming from Australia, the official immigration docs ask do you have a DUI? If yes, was it below .07 Blood Alcohol Content?
(In Australia the crime is .05 or above, but in Canada the crime is only > .07)
So even if you broke the law in Australia and got a DUI at .06, Canada will ignore it, because technically driving at .06 in Canada is not a crime, so they don't deem you to have committed a crime at all!
They can deny for any arbitrary reason, or no reason at all!
I would happily say "no" and smile if I was you when asked about what you did in a different country that they have no business knowing.
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 have no "right to remain silent". And in a democratic state I don't think that's immoral either. Knowing is in fact their business, and if it shouldn't be then the government should tell its border controls to not inquire at all.
>I would happily say "no" and smile if I was you when asked about what you did in a different country that they have no business knowing.
Obviously as a practical matter there are many situations where the odds of getting caught are minimal to non-existent, but I would be very cautious about casually committing perjury. Particularly in this worrying day and age of photos everywhere and ever increasing ML that can actually make sense of it and centralized datasets that governments may be able to gain access to. For example, particularly when the behavior is made legal I'd expect there to be a lot more people who post pictures of themselves using cannabis or not being concerned if someone else in the picture is because of course it's legal. Combine with spreading facial recognition and person tagging on places like Facebook and advertising (since it's legalized) that will be actively and legally interested in "is so-and-so a user so we can sell them related products" and someone could quite easily end up in a database saying "confirmed to use cannabis" without ever knowing. There are many times where "the coverup is worse then the crime" is quite true, and something that would merely get you politely or not so politely turned away would turn into a serious crime by lying about it. You can't know when an authority is asking you something out of actual interest vs a question they know the answer to already just to test you.
Honesty and political pressure seems better in this specific case given that it's not like there isn't already a major legalization movement in the US too. Canada is an extremely important business partner and source of tourism and ally. If enough Canadians were denied entry over this then even under this administration pressure to simply change the rules to ignore it would be very high. If not under this one then when the Democrats retake control.
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?
And of course the policy also says that if they think you lied, they might use that as a reason to deny entry in the future.
They are free to not let you in, but you are free to ignore any irrelevant or intimate questions.
> You: "No"
If you have consumed in the last 30 days, then your "No" response is definitely not correct.
Lying is only giving wrong answers on correct questions. If a person sticks their nose where it does not belong, too bad.
I have rights to do any kinds of thingd to my body, and I have exactly zero obligation to disclose it, unless in strict contexts of medical help or driving.
- I'm just kidding..
For some time you might act that way, but you are trespassing.
There is no right to cross the border, but there's loads of other rights, human and otherwise, that you still undeniably have while being at the border.
There is no international body regulating any other kind of right, despite the well-meaning intention of a number of organizations.
This may end up ugly for the USA if they try to abuse that decision. Not every country in this world is Mexico.
So you want the country the person is traveling from to impose their Will on the country they are traveling to?
Happens all the time.
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.
This makes no sense. How does having consumed weed in the past entail that one will consume weed in the United States? This is like saying that a person who has driven on the left in the past will drive on the left in the United States, and should therefore be denied entry. It's ridiculous.
If you and I had a betting market that allowed us to bet on an individual's likelihood of consuming weed while in the United States, knowledge of that person's past behavior in consuming weed would be a strong piece of evidence that you could use when making a bet.
Anybody consuming weed today is more likely to have consumed it in the last 30 days than somebody that is not consuming weed today.
Of course making actual behavior consequential rather than potential behavior doesn't have those delicious authoritarian overtones.
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 roads when in UK/Japan.
Obviously perfectly legal in Germany, but seriously illegal in the USA, so the border guards will deny you entry for breaking a US law while you where in a country where it's not illegal! insanity!
Once on a connecting flight so I wasn't even wanting to leave the airport. At the time I was working for a highly regarded company and going on to do some work for CBC in Toronto. I had flown in on business class and my smile, polite British English, white skin, smart clothes, clean passport and squeaky clean criminal record should have given me a free pass. I wasn't even carrying any highly unusual electronic hardware. And no I had not been a member of the 'communist party'.
As I saw it there was just a problem of 'customer service'. The mentality of border guards should be to welcome guests to the country and not treat everyone as a criminal.
As a non-U.S. person I am like a lot of people that just see the U.S. as not the place to want to go to. I know that most Americans lay on fantastic hospitality for visitors, welcoming you into their homes and looking out for you. But the hostile border guards obfuscate that.
Canada is the far more preferable destination, whether you want to be stoned all day or not matters little really, the legalisation of weed sends a signal that Canada is the much more welcoming place to go.
Tourism matters, I do wonder how much tourist trade the U.S. misses out on due to the negative perception the world has of the place.
Everyone in the world says this about their own border agents! People always seem to be most critical of their own.
i hated coming in through detroit or atlanta (one atlanta officer even tried to find me on facebook -- wtf?). but only had good experiences with new york city and chicago.
Except those situations are very rare. CBP's own website lists a total of 40 deaths over the past 15 years. I looked at over half of them, and very few were actually a "deadly confronatation"
Some of the deaths:
* One intern died after collapsing during a 1.5 mile run that was part of his final exam.
* At least two died following from heart attacks
* Another two are listed as having collapsed and died with no further cause.
* Another was listed as heat related.
* At least two people died in separate incidents when their vehicles hit large animals.
* At least four people have died due to accidental drowning.
* At least three died when their aircraft crashed.
* At least one was hit by a drunk driver.
* At least two killed when their vehicle was hit by a freight train.
* At least two were killed during altercations while off duty.
Most of the rest appear to be single vehicle crashes. It appears that less than 10 were actually shot, stabbed, or otherwise killed by people, and I didn't see a single listing of one happening at a border control station.
These people want you to believe they have an incredibly dangerous job. While it's certainly more dangerous than working in IT, the truth is that law enforcement isn't even in the top 10 of dangerous jobs!
The police unions would have you believe that it was. Regarding people killed on the job, law enforcement is right there with construction work, but most deaths on the job are traffic deaths. Actual genuine targeted murders of police officers are rare, it's about 40/year. The number of civilians killed in police-involved shootings is a different magnitude altogether, over 1000/year.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I've come to believe tech is a very dangerous career. Years ago I recall looking out my office window and realizing that everyone I could see in front of me had a (free!) soda on their desk and most of them had diabetes. Heart disease, diabetes, back problems, carpal tunnel, eye strain, obesity - tech is a silent killer. Sitting at a desk for 8+ hours a day will do that.
Perhaps they assume that if border guards establish a friendly relationship like that, it will only help bad actors distract the border guard from strictly enforcing the rules through jokes, small talk, etc.
Still, if the USA wants that approach, it could still learn a lot from Israeli passport control. Whenever I have entered Israel I have been asked a lot of questions and the official had some reasonable suspicion about my plans and travel history, but this questioning was still done in a fairly respectful and professional way. The guard wasn’t glum and surly like American border agents.
We watch cheap flight deals pretty regularly and have noticed we are seeing a lot more cheap flights to the US than normal, so it makes us think that perhaps the US is starting to suffer on tourism, but it could just be our biases.
As more people get fed up like us, tourism will wane, but I doubt it'll make a big enough dent anytime soon for any action to be taken, especially when it's spread across the entire US, so harder to see at once.
It's intended to be stressful because that gets people to crack. My advice is to not take it personally unless they really push the line. The stress is part of their procedure to make sure you are not lying.
However, for someone with a gun on their belt, having got their education from Hollywood films and with a government that snitches on the world to lock up dark skinned people in Guantanamo I guess this jobsworth mentality makes sense to them.
Upsetting people who have good money to spend means they don't come back. You don't want to be treated like garbage by imbeciles that insult your intelligence. It is taken personally. The U.S.A. is not that special, it is just full of entitled people that think they are special.
There is no reason they cant do the same job while treating everyone with respect. When you work with a group of people that see themselves as hammers, everyone else is a nail.
Because that's one way that police forces make it clear to you who is in charge.
Also, because you have no recourse against people wielding absolute power over you.
The policy change regarding viewing drugs not as criminal but decriminalized and a health issue where needed, is the safer thing to do in a regulated market that will improve safety for recreational use and harm reduction. The War on Drugs started as an attack on personal freedoms and made drugs more dangerous both in production and use, spawning all sorts of synthetics that are more dangerous and black market mafia forces spawning violence just like during alcohol prohibition.
Maybe in 2019 the US can be next as a whole ending cannabis prohibition, about 50 years after the kickoff of Nixon's drug wars due to losing to Leary in the SCOTUS over the Marihuana Tax Act 
> Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary's conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by replacing the Marihuana Tax Act with the newly written Controlled Substances Act while continuing the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States
Unfortunately, it is too bad leading states like Colorado, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada and more aren't able to capitalize on the markets until the US as a whole federally ends prohibition. US states that are forward looking are cut off from banking, interstate commerce, global investment and are being held back by the anti-market approach of the current prohibitions.
Canada stepped up to first mover globally for cannabis which will lead to a chance at global cannabis companies being Canadian.
To an extent, yes. With regard to those new markets, though, most provinces are taking the monopoly route. So while production will be in private hands, distribution and in some cases even retail will be done by provincial government monopolies.
To illustrate how the market has been strangled in this regard, there are no physical stores open within several hours' drive of where I am, despite it being a fairly large (for Canada) metro area. My province (Quebec) has a dozen stores open today, that's it. Online sales exist, but there is a legitimate discussion over whether or not anyone would want a digital trail of their pot purchases, with the SQDC's name set to show up on your credit card statement (potentially accessible by the US border agents, for instance) when you order.
"“We’re currently shipping cannabis to several of these countries already. We’re already taking advantage of this opportunity,” he explained, citing Europe as a current client for several major Canadian marijuana growers."
For a while the #3 cash crop in BC, after fishing and logging, was weed. That can't all be for domestic consumption.
It’s not unusual for marijuana busts in the US to be measured in tons.
I’d assume total US consumption is probably in the thousands of tons of marijuana?
What's your source on this? Free speech is enshrined as a "fundamental freedom" in the Charter. There are reasonable limits as well, to ensure that things like hate speech are deemed illegal.
So chalk it up to Canada being used in the partisan ratings war that seems to dominate news nowadays.
His argument is that people should be judged as individuals, not by what group they randomly happen to be part of.
Peterson advocates for free speech and MLK's dream: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Some misguided white men might think that they are "the most oppressed group", but they are just that: misguided.
So, IE, Blasphemous Libel is a thing in Canada.
- the limitations clause: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
- the notwithstanding clause: (too long to paste but here's Wikipeida's summary): "The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time"
Basically, we have "freedom of speech", but it's not an absolute right, it's limited by "reasonable limits" (as decided by the courts). Further, even if the courts decide that some kind of provincial law violates the charter, the province can invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and continue enforcing the law. I'd argue that, in general, this all works out pretty well, but it's not really that strong of protection relative to the American Constitution.
However some consolation can be derived from it being a castle of sand and thus subject to a real tipping point effect. As soon as some trailblazer does manage to move forward and shine a light under the bed and it turns out that no, there is no monster, the sky does not in fact fall, and people realize that they do in fact know many people involved who were just hiding it before. Then it fairly rapidly becomes a non-issue to the majority of the population as they move on to new concrete (or invented, but new anyway) concerns. Hopefully the drug "war" will soon become the latest example.
This is a huge issue and cannot be overstated. Most of us are willing to go to great lengths to avoid cutting off potential future opportunities, and showing any support for (or even knowledge of) cannabis use can absolutely do this. I have personally lost out on at least three major career paths because of it, and that was without any direct admission on my part.
One outcome that gets mentioned is that vehicular accidents increased in Colorado following legalization but the population growth outpaced the relative growth in accidents, meaning per-capita vehicular accidents actually fell.
Some data on cannabis and accident rates: https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/evaluating-res...
the cash-only nature of the businesses (because of ongoing federal restrictions on banking for people engaged in activity the feds consider illegal) caused an ecosystem for cash handling to spring up along the front range in colorado.
that made it a somewhat more fertile area for organized crime, and so the cartels are more active than they were. and they can't sell pot, so they're selling heroin.
(beats me if the news has covered this, go talk to some denver cops or something.)
So, no sources then? I'd love to see them, all the same. :)
I've actually talked to DPD a bit. Legalization hasn't led to the heroin/opiate epidemic increasing, at least as far as I can tell.
In talking to doctors at the VA, though, what has gone up is severe head injuries. It's a total mystery as to why, but it seems that legalization is associated with head trauma. They'd love to research it more and publish on it, but as a schedule 1 drug, they can't.
Many advocates for legalisation will show how it is expected to reduce the overall harm from the drug. It will be interesting to see if this plays out in practice. I for one am hopeful.
US national laws are certainly a different case, but the debate is hardly "stifled".
Does the Netherlands not count?
Consumption and carrying small amounts is tolerated, police will not take any action and public attorneys never prosecute these cases.
But production is illegal and besides two small plants in your home, completely not tolerated. If you get caught with say 10 plants they're destroyed with few other consequences. If you get caught with a more considerable production however, you get prosecuted.
A lot of softdrug related crime isn't connected to consumption but rather production. The Netherlands isn't a good case study for studying effects on that kind of crime etc.
Same with many other drugs like xtc. Consumption is rarely criminally targetted. Production is. Virtually ever farmer in the south of the country gets approached by drug producers, there's a whole undergeound web of crime, black money, corruption etc.
You'll have to wait a while for the case study -- maybe until the US itself legalizes.
It's true that those businesses who benefitted from the regulation stand to be making serious money, and I suppose that is different from the situation in the Netherlands in a major way.
Production is only illegal in the same way that tobacco production is illegal - you have to be licences to produce and sell cannabis products.
It'll also be interesting to see how things like dry herb vapes differ, they basically just heat the cannabis to 350-400 degrees where the cannabinoids and terpenes vaporize without burning it, they seem like the best way to go if you want a reasonably good dose control and safety margin at the moment. Avoids many of the issues with concentrate vapes, flavorings, cheap heating coils, etc but I still have some doubts on perfect safety there.
it is known not to be harmless. it can cause cardiovascular issues. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.08.001
Subjective perspective - smoking is really bad, can be dramatically improved with good vaping but its still harmful. One of the great side effects of legalization - health-conscious people have less damaging options for consumption. Eliminated by eating the material, but then effects are a bit different. There have been some rumors on lower sperm count/lowered movement, not sure if related more to smoking any material or something in cannabis causing it. For short term buzz maybe some nasal spray would be great (again, legalization can help this get done properly).
Then there are mental effects - people are mentally incapacitated, usually even day after is felt, short term memory negatively impaired. Long term frequent usage leads to mild dependence, which can be given up much easier compared to ie cigarettes. Can trigger dormant mental illnesses, and amplify them with long term usage (I guess paranoia is the most common one, schizophrenics would be also bad - same can be achieved with any other drug including alcohol, or big shock like car crash).
Side effects of behavior can be quite destructive too - 'munchies' cravings for unhealthy food (sweet, fried etc) - long term disastrous for health just like any other overeating.
I can't think of anything else right now, but for sure there is something else. Overall relatively low harm, especially when things like alcohol and tobacco roam civilization almost freely
The issue here is the initial research consistently shows us the opposite - frequent cannabis use appears to cause developmental delay and may cause _irreversible_ mental illness in adolescents that is in at least one case worse than alcohol.
Let's take Schizophrenia as an example:
Increased Risk of Schizophrenia from Alcohol and drugs:
Cannabis: 5.2 times
Alcohol: 3.4 times
Hallucinogenic drugs: 1.9 times
Sedatives: 1.7 times
Amphetamines: 1.24 times
Other substances: 2.8 times
Direct link to study - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...
Since the brain doesn't fully develop until 25 I don't disagree that alcohol and other legal substances are dangerous for adolescents but from the initial research we are seeing Cannabis is in some cases more damaging than alcohol and requires further study.
> smoking marijuana is harmless
The opposite. Consuming (know your dosage, know your substance) can have a variety of health benefits.
It is worth noting there a known side-effects too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Impact_on_psy...
Do Canadian government set prices for many goods? Would the same prices apply to giving people pot you grew at home?
Several times it mentions "smoking pot", surely they should be trying to make vaping or other use normative otherwise you're inviting lots of illnesses related to smoking anything.
Does cannabis get cut with other plant matter a lot, are they planning on any enforcement there?
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 think might be government run, but even if not it pretty much has a monopoly on beer sales).
No advertisements, no product on the shelves, just a person standing at a register taking orders and you case of beer magically arriving on a conveyor belt.
Weird to think about now.
Saskatchewan was especially egregious. They had a lottery system to determine who would get a license to sell pot.
Yet they still have a near-monopoly on beer sales!