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

[Jacob]

I think that conclusions like this are a result of the misuse of the term "they" or "them."  The "they" who buy South American governments and whose thugs massacre each other (and any intervening civilians or merely suspected enemies) aren't the 'they" that run betting books in the corner bar.  The thugs and drug lords in South and Central America probably won't get involved much in more organized crime if the drug trafficking opportunities go away.  They will enjoy their retirement, or just stay in crime of the old, every-thug-for-himself kind.

There will still be organized crime, but it won't be carried out much (if at all) by the ex-drug smugglers and drug lords.

I don't know, grumbler; I think there are plenty of examples of criminal organizations that have moved from one source of revenue on to another once the first one became less lucrative.

That said, you are probably right that any number of individuals and groups may not move on. My point was less about whether any particular group or individual would move on if some drugs became less lucrative due to legalization, and more about the conditions that allow organized crime to flourish altogether, whether they're new organizations formed to exploit the extant conditions or whether they're established organizations looking for new revenue sources.

[Jacob]

Actually ... the clients who have consulted me on this topic were both established healthcare firms with major ongoing business.

I'm pretty sure the banks will not have a problem doing financial transactions with them. 

They aren't individuals looking to get a loan to start a grow-op.  They're not spacey hippies, nor are they criminals.

Neither were the scenarios I discussed with my banker. At this point, it appears, the banks are not ready to support even Malthus' clients in being involved.

[crazy canuck]

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

they prescribe it like they prescribe other painkillers. 

You are just flat out wrong about that Viper.  While it is true that pot is prescribed as a painkiller it is not prescribed solely for that reason.  Take for example the case that created the requirement for an exemption in the law for medical pot.

The reason we have medical pot today is because of an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in about 2000 which held that it was unconstitional for a person to be forced to choose between their health and their liberty.

On the facts in that case the accused had severe epilepsy and after traditional medical treatments  failed, he found that marijuana significantly reduced his seizures.  At that time of course he did not have access to medical marijuana and so he grew is own.  He was charged with possession.

The Court gave the Feds two years to create an exemption in the criminal law for medical use.  That is why the current federal government cannot simply outlaw all use but instead are attempting to restrict medical use as much as possible.

Further, pot has been found to be a very effective anti inflammatory.  Something that someday will be quite important for me so I have some skin in this game (and especially the ability to access it without the need to smoke it).  And research has shown that it is effective at shrinking cancerous tumors.

Here is just one of the many links that can be found regarding the medicinal effects of pot.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4


Put another way Viper.  If pot was just another pain killer that can easily be replaced by a drug which is currently legal, the Court of Appeal would never have required the exemption.

[crazy canuck]

Actually ... the clients who have consulted me on this topic were both established healthcare firms with major ongoing business.

I'm pretty sure the banks will not have a problem doing financial transactions with them. 

They aren't individuals looking to get a loan to start a grow-op.  They're not spacey hippies, nor are they criminals.

Neither were the scenarios I discussed with my banker. At this point, it appears, the banks are not ready to support even Malthus' clients in being involved.

Jacob, you were just some guy off the street raising the issue as a joke.  I dont think you can infer that the response you got is the same response that one of Malthus' clients would receive.  Perhaps if you retained Malthus you would get a better response.

[Jacob]

Jacob, you were just some guy off the street raising the issue as a joke.  I dont think you can infer that the response you got is the same response that one of Malthus' clients would receive.  Perhaps if you retained Malthus you would get a better response.

I'm sure it's the need of Malthus' clients and their peers that are driving the bank's ongoing review of their guidelines, and I'm sure that they'll see the benefits much sooner than some guy off the street.

[crazy canuck]

Jacob, you were just some guy off the street raising the issue as a joke.  I dont think you can infer that the response you got is the same response that one of Malthus' clients would receive.  Perhaps if you retained Malthus you would get a better response.

I'm sure it's the need of Malthus' clients and their peers that are driving the bank's ongoing review of their guidelines, and I'm sure that they'll see the benefits much sooner than some guy off the street.

You were dealing with someone at the retail bank level.  At another level the response will be, "Lets talk about how we can do this."

[Jacob]

You were dealing with someone at the retail bank level.  At another level the response will be, "Lets talk about how we can do this."

Yes. I agree.

[Malthus]

Not sure why it would even be an issue.

Medical pot is regulated as a narcotic drug. There are already manufacturers of narcotic pharmaceutical drugs out there - I've represented several. It's a perfectly legitimate business, not sure why the banks would care about lending to it any more than to any other pharma company, other than the diversion risk ... i.e., if you were a mom-and-pop operation trying to get licenced to make generic Asprin out of your basement, the banks will treat you very differently from a major manufacturer.   

The main problem with narcotics manufacturing different from any other drug manufacturing is always going to be security and the possibility of diversion into the illegal market. That's why those who deal in narcotics have to get a dealer's licence, which includes a requirement for undergoing a security clearance. The diversion risk may well concern a bank, but again, if you are a major manufacturer not so much.

[sbr]

I don't mean to go all semantics here but has the meaning of narcotics changed in the last 10 years or so? Growing up I thought narcotics was specific to opiates, not just any illegal drug.

It really sounds wrong to call pot a narcotic.

Not an argument just a curiosity.

[Malthus]

I don't mean to go all semantics here but has the meaning of narcotics changed in the last 10 years or so? Growing up I thought narcotics was specific to opiates, not just any illegal drug.

It really sounds wrong to call pot a narcotic.

Not an argument just a curiosity.

No, I don't mean "as understood in ordinary language". You are clearly right that it pot isn't a "narcotic" as the term is generally understood.

I mean that it is regulated in Canada under the regulatory category "narcotic", as defined in the Narcotic Control Regulations to the federal Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/crc-c-1041/latest/crc-c-1041.html

"narcotic"
"narcotic" means

(a) any substance set out in the schedule or anything that contains the substance, ...

Schedule

...

17. Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations, including:
(1) Cannabis resin
(2) Cannabis (marihuana)
(3) Cannabidiol (2-[3-methyl-6-(1-methylethenyl- 2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-1,3-benzenediol)
(4) Cannabinol (3-n-amyl-6,6,9-trimethyl-6-dibenzo-pyran-1-ol)
(5) Nabilone((±)-trans-3-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-6,6a,7,8,- 10,10a-hexahydro-1-hydroxy-6,6-dimethyl-9H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-9-one)
(6) Pyrahexyl (3-n-hexyl-6,6,9-trimethyl-7,8,9,10- tetrahydro-6-dibenzopyran-1-ol)
(7) Tetrahydrocannabinol(tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3- pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol)
(7.1) 3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol (DMHP)
but not including
(8) Non-viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives
(9) Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fiber derived from such stalks

[sbr]

Ah, I would imagine it is similar here and that is why so many people call it a narcotic.

[Razgovory]

Well... they make their own jobs by exploiting the gullible, the weak, grey areas in legislation, and economic opportunities available from avoiding the law (i.e. import/export, taxation, illegal) while providing goods and services for which there are a market.

If those conditions are no longer present, then perhaps organized crime will fade away; but as long as those conditions exist, organized crime will be around.

I think that conclusions like this are a result of the misuse of the term "they" or "them."  The "they" who buy South American governments and whose thugs massacre each other (and any intervening civilians or merely suspected enemies) aren't the 'they" that run betting books in the corner bar.  The thugs and drug lords in South and Central America probably won't get involved much in more organized crime if the drug trafficking opportunities go away.  They will enjoy their retirement, or just stay in crime of the old, every-thug-for-himself kind.

There will still be organized crime, but it won't be carried out much (if at all) by the ex-drug smugglers and drug lords.

I really do wonder what you base this on.  What motives do you think these people have?