Health Canada presides over birth of billion-dollar free market in marijuana

[grumbler]

Nothing to do with the illegality of cocaine, wich was illegal since before WW1 anyway.

Crack cocaine became popular because drug dealers could produce more value in street product per ounce of material smuggled.  That was purely the outcome of making the drug illegal, and of stepping up enforcement and penalties.  But, at least, you've dropped the 'technology' argument.  that was wise.

then what are the benefits of legalizing dangerous products for everyday use?  Taxing them like tobacco&alcohol?  That won't stop contraband and it certainly won't stop related crimes.  I could still buy illegal cigarettes and illegal tequila if I wanted to.  Same applies to gun, really, despite strong anti-guns laws.  Should we legalize all type of guns because the Hell's Angels and the mafia makes tons of money trading weapons?  Is that a reason to keep guns freely available in the US, because otherwise the organized crime would profit from it (as if it didn't right now)?

The benefits of legalizing alcohol and other dangerous products for everyday use are:
(1) we take money out of the hands of the crooks
(2) we increase the safety and quality of the products (not making them "safe," but at least making them "safer")
(3) we save the cost of imprisoning millions of people
(4) we encourage drug users to understand that theirs is a health problem, not a crime problem, and so they can seek help without risking long prison terms.

There are, of course, many others, but those will do for now.

Let's assume that there are no laws on the books about drugs for the moment.  Make the case, equivalent to mine here, for criminalizing, say, marijuana.

[Neil]

Heroin was freely available in the early 20th century, it didn't stop people from consuming it.  Just as with cocaine, it was made illegal/heavily regulated around the 20s, maybe late 1910s.  Crack didn't appear until the 80s, when the technology to create it was available to just about everyone. 

This is a joke, right?  The "technology to create" crack cocaine consists of, what, a candle, some baking powder, and a spoon?  When was the candle "available to just about everyone?"

Technology is also knowledge, and so he's right in that crack didn't appear until the knowledge to create it proliferated.

[Capetan Mihali]

There are a lot of reasons crack proliferated when it did.  One of them is that freebasing cocaine powder had become very popular in the late 70s and early 80s, since it delivered the strongest rush short of IV injection, but it required a fairly complicated and dangerous chemical extraction process to produce smokable cocaine out of snortable powder (cocaine hcl).  That's how Richard Pryor got burned.  I think it might be depicted in some form in "Boogie Nights" since John Holmes was heavily addicted to freebase.

[grumbler]

There are a lot of reasons crack proliferated when it did.  One of them is that freebasing cocaine powder had become very popular in the late 70s and early 80s, since it delivered the strongest rush short of IV injection, but it required a fairly complicated and dangerous chemical extraction process to produce smokable cocaine out of snortable powder (cocaine hcl).  That's how Richard Pryor got burned.  I think it might be depicted in some form in "Boogie Nights" since John Holmes was heavily addicted to freebase.

The point, though, is that crack cocaine users wouldn't exist in any numbers if cocaine had been legal; it may give a more immediate high, but is also much more dangerous and addictive.

[viper37]

Crack cocaine became popular because drug dealers could produce more value in street product per ounce of material smuggled.  That was purely the outcome of making the drug illegal, and of stepping up enforcement and penalties. 

The drug has been illegal since early 20th century, crack did not appear 'til the mid-80s.

If you look at legal products, you always see a tendency of getting more for the same price.  Think of shampoo bottles in the 80s "33% more".  Think of sugar substitute wich are more concentrated.  Think of alcool,wine and beer were many producers seek to enhance the content of their products by adding pure alcohol as the fermentation process isn't sufficient.  Think of soap where you get "ultra" stuff that is more concentrated in a smaller format.  I don't see drugs evolving differently because they were made illegal.

But, at least, you've dropped the 'technology' argument.  that was wise.

I don't know anything about chemistry, I chose physics and history instead.  I thought it was like ice, it required some purification process of the regular coke and some additives, but it seems I was wrong.  I'm just wondering why they waited the 80s to do it since it was so easy.

The benefits of legalizing alcohol and other dangerous products for everyday use are:
(1) we take money out of the hands of the crooks

Lots of corporations are managed by crooks.  Many bankers made their money by cheating consumers and then turning to the government to get them out of their misery.  How is it different than being a crook?
Tobacco companies sold their products to smugglers to increase their sales in Canada.  How is it different than being a crook?
Enron was legal.  A legitimate business. How are they not crooks?
Financial services are legal & heavily regulated.  There are crooks on the sides offering their services for cheaper and promising bigger return on investments, and they are quite popular, until they sink and everyone realizes the honest looking guy with no license and no financial education giving them huge monthly return was a crook who lived a good life with their money.
Medical services are legal and heavily regulated.  Yet, there are lots of stories about fake doctors&nurses.

(2) we increase the safety and quality of the products (not making them "safe," but at least making them "safer")

True if you consider only the legalized product in itself by ignoring substitute.  Unless we decide to legalize everything, there will always be something stronger and cheaper for the buzz it gives.  Quality has a price.  If you sell 5 ounces of pure coke on one side and 5 ounces of a product that contains only 1 ounce of real coke on the other side, which one costs more?  If we legalize coke but not crack, what's to prevent people from using crack?  If we legalize crack but not ice, how to we prevent people from using ice because it's stronger?

Look at the other thread about alcohol in the UK.  It's a widely available product, it has its quality controlled, it is not in the hands of crooks.  Yet, 18% of the population admits to buying illegal alcohol even when they know it contains stuff harmful to their health.  How would that be different with legalized drugs like heroin, cocaine, marijuana, haschish?

(3) we save the cost of imprisoning millions of people

True, but you could just stop improsining consumers.  Canada doesn't jail simple consumers.  Most of Europe doesn't either.  Yet, not all drugs are legal everywhere.  People here smoke pot in the street right in front or beside the police station.

(4) we encourage drug users to understand that theirs is a health problem, not a crime problem, and so they can seek help without risking long prison terms.

Obviously, I don't know what's the situation where you live, but no one here is going to jail because they admit to a consumption problem.  Various program exists, privately or publicly funded.  Some religious based program with doubtful utility, sure, but apparently, some good stuff too.
Yet, drug users are unlikely to stop until they reach the bottom.  Say, when people come to their homes and thrash everything because of unpaid drug debts.  Or when they make a trip to the hospital as a warning.
Or when they land in jail after killing someone.

I can't find stats on it, but it's been my experience that only a tiny minority of drug users stop on their own, without any kind of pressure.  I know of some, but most of those I know had to face the bottom of the barrel before acting on it.

Let's assume that there are no laws on the books about drugs for the moment.  Make the case, equivalent to mine here, for criminalizing, say, marijuana.

[list=1]

• it is a dangerous product to the consumer.  Just like many other dangerous product, it is the government's responsibility to protect public health.  You can't buy arsenic at your local drugstore.  I can't buy chemical fertilizer without a proper license that certifies I have the right to use it on my lands, even in small quantities.  I can't simply buy a gun for my own protection without passing multiple tests certifying I really need it and I can use it safely for me and others.
  
• It is a dangerous product to other people around the consumer.  Just like tobacco forbidden in public places, I see no reason to allow smokers to poison their environment.  People make choices for themselves, I don't make the choice to breathe marijuana smoke when people light one at a concert.
  
• Driving under influence is bad, m'kay?    Right now, you have no good way of detecting drug use other than bloodtest.  A police officer can not force you to give a sample of your blood, unless you were involved in an accident or a crime.  For wich case he needs a warrant, but I understand it's easier to get now.  While with alcohol, if you refuse to take the breath test, your ass will land in jail and you car will be seized.  Either we change the laws (wich implies changing the canadian constitution, if I'm right, but BB will step in and correct me if I'm wrong and it changed recently, but as of 10 years ago you could still refuse a blood test), or we wait until we have the technology to detect drug use, just as with alcohol.
  
• Employers have the build a really, really, really tight case to be able to fire a drug using employee, and even then, they must meet strict criterias: a treatment must have been offered more than once, the security of the worker must be in danger, the security of the other workers must be in danger, the employee must be paid in full for the day(s) in wich he presents himself to work despite being under influence of mind altering substance, if an insurance is available at the place of work, it must cover detox programs.  If one of these criteria is not met, the employee can sue his company for illegal termination of contract and can aks to be reinstated.
  
• Employees coming to work totally stoned and not detected as such immediatly before starting their work can still claim compensation if they injure themselves.  If I don't want them to work, I have to pay them the full day and a transport home.
  
• Alcool is good for your health in small quantity, especially wine, but also beer and stronger alcools, each with their own benefits.  I have yet to find a single study talking about the benefits of regularly smoking small quantities of marijuana.
  
• Drugs cost a ton of money to get your feeling and cause social problems much, much worst than anything else.  Entire families destroyed, people going totally crazy after years of use, etc.  With alcohol, the brain damages stops once you stop consuming.
  

[crazy canuck]

I have yet to find a single study talking about the benefits of regularly smoking small quantities of marijuana.

The only reason the government is taking this step is because they cannot outlaw pot completely and stay within the Charter because of the medicinal effects of pot.

For those who think this is a step toward legalization you are not reading this in the proper context.   This move is aimed to eliminate the ability of small producers to grow their own (which was the former model that this move replaces).  It is easier to regulate a few large producers than thousands of people who are mainly growing their own.  The government is also restricting the type of pot that can be distributed to being only dried leaves.  As I understand it the only way pot can be used in that form and obtain the benefit of the drug is by smoking it.  The problem is that for a lot of medical conditions it is either not possible to smoke (eg lung conditions) or not the prefered method to using the drug (ie ingesting is more effective).

I agree entirely with what Grumbler has been saying.  And to add to it, this law criminalizes all those small producers who were growing pot for their own use and for whom smoking dried leaves is not a viable form of treatment.  All those people - who number in the thousands - will now have to either grow their own in violation of the law or buy from dealers.

The drug policy in this country needs a serious rethink. 

[viper37]

The only reason the government is taking this step is because they cannot outlaw pot completely and stay within the Charter because of the medicinal effects of pot.

There are no medicinal effects to pot, no more than morphine is a cure for cancer.  In fact, doctors will not prescribe marijuana to non smokers.  If you already smoke pot and you ask your doctor to prescribe it to you as a stress relief or to cure pain, chronic or not, they will.

The problem is that for a lot of medical conditions it is either not possible to smoke (eg lung conditions) or not the prefered method to using the drug (ie ingesting is more effective).

The preferred method at first was to give marijuana pills to cancer patients.  Since smokers complain it wasn't effective, the government agreed to let them smoke their own stuff.  If you already have cancer  or aids and are in terminal phase of your disease, there is no worries about developping lung cancer down the road.

There's no way a doctor will prescribe you marijuana for back pain after an accident though, unless you ask about it.

The drug policy in this country needs a serious rethink.

but why only for illegal drugs?  I can't buy morphine over the counter.  Whatever medication I buy at the drugstore is heavily controlled.  Why make an exception for people who can't control their addiction, especially when it is no more effective than current remedies?  Why not liberalize all drug - illegal or not commerce - ? You want morphine?  Buy it at your local Wal-Mart.  You need asthma medication?  Get it from your grocery store, right beside your shampoo.[/quote]

[Malthus]

Heh, I just got my second file related to this ... 

I love regulatory change. 

[crazy canuck]

Heh, I just got my second file related to this ... 

I love regulatory change. 

Yeah, I was thinking this will be a huge boon for you.

[Malthus]

Heh, I just got my second file related to this ... 

I love regulatory change. 

Yeah, I was thinking this will be a huge boon for you.

It helps that in typical Canadian fashion the new regime is of byzantine complexity. 

[crazy canuck]

There are no medicinal effects to pot

I wonder then why doctors prescribe it and I wonder why our current government who is very much anti drugs would allow it to be sold

[Jacob]

I was just at the bank the other day, and I asked them about opening a business account for a weed related business (I was just joking around). The lady told me that they are reviewing their guidelines; right now, it seems that no major institution is yet willing to do business with people getting into the weed business, so there are a few practical obstacles still to be overcome.

[grumbler]

The drug has been illegal since early 20th century, crack did not appear 'til the mid-80s.

Federal drug law enforcement didn't begin in earnest until the "War on Drugs" was accelerated with the creation of the DEA in 1973, and then the acceleration of investigations and arrests in the 1980s.  So crack cocaine is a result of the war on drugs, not the result of the controls placed on cocaine in the 1920s.  This is exactly my point.

(deleted some demented analogy to shampoo).

I don't know anything about chemistry, I chose physics and history instead.  I thought it was like ice, it required some purification process of the regular coke and some additives, but it seems I was wrong.  I'm just wondering why they waited the 80s to do it since it was so easy.

I explained why:  the War on Drugs.

Lots of corporations are managed by crooks.  Many bankers made their money by cheating consumers and then turning to the government to get them out of their misery.  How is it different than being a crook?

Tobacco companies sold their products to smugglers to increase their sales in Canada.  How is it different than being a crook?
Enron was legal.  A legitimate business. How are they not crooks?
Financial services are legal & heavily regulated.  There are crooks on the sides offering their services for cheaper and promising bigger return on investments, and they are quite popular, until they sink and everyone realizes the honest looking guy with no license and no financial education giving them huge monthly return was a crook who lived a good life with their money.
Medical services are legal and heavily regulated.  Yet, there are lots of stories about fake doctors&nurses.

Was any of this aimed at anything I said, or was this supposed to be in a different response in another thread?  Surely your argument isn't that allowing thugs to get rich off of the drug trade is the same as jailing the Enron guys?

True if you consider only the legalized product in itself by ignoring substitute.  Unless we decide to legalize everything, there will always be something stronger and cheaper for the buzz it gives.

This is absolutely untrue.  When marijuana is legalized or decriminalized in a jurisdiction, the use of harder drugs doesn't go up.

But the argument could be made for legalizing everything, in which case your point is moot.

Look at the other thread about alcohol in the UK.  It's a widely available product, it has its quality controlled, it is not in the hands of crooks.  Yet, 18% of the population admits to buying illegal alcohol even when they know it contains stuff harmful to their health.  How would that be different with legalized drugs like heroin, cocaine, marijuana, haschish?

The difference is in the 82% of people who procure the safe stuff.  You want that percentage to be zero.

• it is a dangerous product to the consumer.  Just like many other dangerous product, it is the government's responsibility to protect public health.  You can't buy arsenic at your local drugstore.  I can't buy chemical fertilizer without a proper license that certifies I have the right to use it on my lands, even in small quantities.  I can't simply buy a gun for my own protection without passing multiple tests certifying I really need it and I can use it safely for me and others.

many things are dangerous, and yet allowed.  Automobiles kill far more people than drugs, and yet remain legal.  All the government can do to protect public health is to make autos (or drugs) as safe as possible given cost constraints.

• It is a dangerous product to other people around the consumer.  Just like tobacco forbidden in public places, I see no reason to allow smokers to poison their environment.  People make choices for themselves, I don't make the choice to breathe marijuana smoke when people light one at a concert.

Red herring.  No one is proposing that smoking be allowed where it is now prohibited.

• Driving under influence is bad, m'kay?    Right now, you have no good way of detecting drug use other than bloodtest.  A police officer can not force you to give a sample of your blood, unless you were involved in an accident or a crime.  For wich case he needs a warrant, but I understand it's easier to get now.  While with alcohol, if you refuse to take the breath test, your ass will land in jail and you car will be seized.  Either we change the laws (wich implies changing the canadian constitution, if I'm right, but BB will step in and correct me if I'm wrong and it changed recently, but as of 10 years ago you could still refuse a blood test), or we wait until we have the technology to detect drug use, just as with alcohol.

Studies show that driving under the influence of alcohol is more dangerous than that of any other drug, and that driving under the influence of Marijuana produces no increased risk of accidents.

• Employers have the build a really, really, really tight case to be able to fire a drug using employee, and even then, they must meet strict criterias: a treatment must have been offered more than once, the security of the worker must be in danger, the security of the other workers must be in danger, the employee must be paid in full for the day(s) in wich he presents himself to work despite being under influence of mind altering substance, if an insurance is available at the place of work, it must cover detox programs.  If one of these criteria is not met, the employee can sue his company for illegal termination of contract and can aks to be reinstated.

This makes no case for making drugs illegal at all.

• Employees coming to work totally stoned and not detected as such immediatly before starting their work can still claim compensation if they injure themselves.  If I don't want them to work, I have to pay them the full day and a transport home.

I am not sure that your convenience is really an argument about public policy.

• Alcool is good for your health in small quantity, especially wine, but also beer and stronger alcools, each with their own benefits.  I have yet to find a single study talking about the benefits of regularly smoking small quantities of marijuana.

What you cannot find isn't very persuasive.

• Drugs cost a ton of money to get your feeling and cause social problems much, much worst than anything else.  Entire families destroyed, people going totally crazy after years of use, etc.  With alcohol, the brain damages stops once you stop consuming.

I ran this through my Gibberish-English translator, and it still came out gibberish.  If the argument is that pot or coke or whatever leads to more family problems than alcohol, it is full of shit.  The idea that the brain damage inflicted by long-term alcoholism miraculously disappears when the decision to stop drinking is made is pure magical thinking.

[mongers]

I still don't understand some peoples instance on controlling the behaviour of others if it's self-regarding.

As for drugs, the damage has been done and looks hard to undo, not on the individuals, but the social impact of this latest bout of prohibition.
Just as the alcohol ban of the 1920s greatly strengthened the Mafia, so the 'War on Drugs' has empowered a range of gangs, supplies chains and social structures, that won't just go away if all drugs are legalised.

Those who've grown rich by the operating in an unregulated market, will find other social arenas to practice their skills in, if drugs are made legal; that will be the lasting impact of this 'war'. 

[Neil]

I was just at the bank the other day, and I asked them about opening a business account for a weed related business (I was just joking around). The lady told me that they are reviewing their guidelines; right now, it seems that no major institution is yet willing to do business with people getting into the weed business, so there are a few practical obstacles still to be overcome.

Makes sense.  After all, the sorts of individuals who would be starting up pot businesses are the sorts of people you wouldn't want to lend money to.