General Canada's House of Commons votes to legalize marijuana

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but what were you expecting?
Well, first off, I didnt vote for the Liberals.. So this is proving my expectations correct.

I thought decriminalization would have served Canadians better than legalization.

But to provide the police the ability to demand a sobriety test including up to taking bodily function without even having the basic thresholds, such as, reasonable suspicion by police is wrong. Some would claim this will infringe upon our freedoms and rights. Police shouldn't be allowed to just go on a fishing expedition if they pull you over and don't like your attitude or have prejudices.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
I thought decriminalization would have served Canadians better than legalization.
To be fair, this isn't actually legalization. It's still illegal unless you follow a very specific set of rules put forth by the government.

But to provide the police the ability to require a sobriety test including up to taking bodily function without even having the basic thresholds, such as, reasonable suspicion by police.
They shouldn't be able to legally compel you to provide evidence against yourself even if they have reasonable suspicion. It's incredible that as a society we're willing to look the other way on people not receiving due process.

Police shouldn't be allowed to just go on a fishing expedition if they pull you over and don't like your attitude or have prejudices.
You should try being a gun owner, lol.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
To be fair, this isn't actually legalization. It's still illegal unless you follow a very specific set of rules put forth by the government
.
Actually it is legalization. Legalization and distribution by the govt.

It is legal to consume and grow within your own privately owned space.

Restrictions come in when you want to pass personal use limits and non owned private spaces.

They shouldn't be able to legally compel you to provide evidence against yourself even if they have reasonable suspicion. It's incredible that as a society we're willing to look the other way on people not receiving due process.
To be able to detain you 'blow' &/or 'swab' without reasonable suspicion is an attack on our very basic charter rights.

I wont even get into the concept of intoxication as a right to charge (physical ability vs chemical levels).
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Actually it is legalization. Legalization and distribution by the govt.

It is legal to consume and grow within your own privately owned space.

Restrictions come in when you want to pass personal use limits and non owned private spaces.
When something is legal it can be done freely without caveat or restrictions. The dogshit that's being given to us is still extremely restrictive.

To be able to detain you 'blow' &/or 'swab' without reasonable suspicion is an attack on our very basic charter rights.
As I said, we waved our basic charter rights goodbye a long time ago. Ironically, the guy who wrote the charter was a big fan of trampling on people's rights.

I wont even get into the concept of intoxication as a right to charge (physical ability vs chemical levels).
My personal opinion is either 0 tolerance, or let people do whatever the fuck they want with the caveat that if you harm someone else or their property you get the fucking book thrown at you. I'm not sure which is the better option, but I know that selecting an arbitrary number and ruining people's lives based on it is disgusting.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
When something is legal it can be done freely without caveat or restrictions. The dogshit that's being given to us is still extremely restrictive.
Incorrect. Someone can legally have their life ended by another person in Canada (homicide). Something that is done legally can also be done illegally.

As I said, we waved our basic charter rights goodbye a long time ago. Ironically, the guy who wrote the charter was a big fan of trampling on people's rights.
So because one charter rights has been infringed upon we should just allow the Federal govt to trample the rest of them?

My personal opinion is either 0 tolerance, or let people do whatever the fuck they want with the caveat that if you harm someone else or their property you get the fucking book thrown at you. I'm not sure which is the better option, but I know that selecting an arbitrary number and ruining people's lives based on it is disgusting.
This is a bullshit opinion.

A person can legally and responsibly consume intoxicating products without becoming impaired to a level where you will fail a test days later. THC doesnt work that way.

If the Federal govt wants to threaten Canadians with a punishment of criminal conviction, initiated without due cause, they best be able to prove someone was impaired and not just point to a chemical make up within ones blood system.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Incorrect. Someone can legally have their life ended by another person in Canada (homicide). Something that is done legally can also be done illegally.
So you wouldn't agree that murder is illegal outside of very unique government granted circumstances?

So because one charter rights has been infringed upon we should just allow the Federal govt to trample the rest of them?
Not even close to what I said. I was simply pointing out that the biggest domino has already fallen, and it's kind of hilarious that people are pretending this is a new problem.

This is a bullshit opinion.

A person can legally and responsibly consume intoxicating products without becoming impaired to a level where you will fail a test days later. THC doesnt work that way.

If the Federal govt wants to threaten Canadians with a punishment of criminal conviction, initiated without due cause, they best be able to prove someone was impaired and not just point to a chemical make up within ones blood system.
That's exactly what a BAC test is. They're testing your chemical make up, not your level of intoxication. Again, this is nothing new.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Not even close to what I said. I was simply pointing out that the biggest domino has already fallen, and it's kind of hilarious that people are pretending this is a new problem.
It is not a new problem, no one said it was a new problem. But because it has happened before we should turn belly up and continue to allow it to happen at the govts will?

That's exactly what a BAC test is. They're testing your chemical make up, not your level of intoxication. Again, this is nothing new.
Previous to the new laws a BAC required a 'reasonable suspicion', post new laws it does not and a failure is now a criminal conviction. Big difference. One infringes on our Constitutional Rights, one does not.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Lol on Oct 18th. A store in Kamloops and the online distribution is supposed to meet the entire demand for marijuana in BC.
 

Ted Williams' head

It's freezing in here!
Sep 23, 2015
11,283
19,102
I don't think this is going to be a smooth transition.

You're going to see a lot more arrests/charges as cops become more vigilant in enforcing smaller offences that they normally didn't give a fuck about when it was illegal.

And a lot of n00bs are going to end up in the emergency room after getting spooked by the effects of pot, likely after consuming too much edibles.

It's a good step though. Hopefully next they can legalize shrooms and LSD, and decriminalize the rest for personal consumption.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
I can confirm I just smoked 3 joints here on the streets of Montreal and was not only not harassed by the law, but possibly given a thumbs up.
 
M

member 1013

Guest
I’m not even a stoner but I kind of want to buy a bag and then go blow smoke in copper’s faces.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
So in another year they will be? Is that still the plan?

Can you buy them online legally?
I think eventually they will be.

I dont think you will be able to buy them legally online.

But I do agree, edibles are going to cause new users some problems. Too many recreational users make the too much too fast mistake with edibles.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Trudeau says Quebec plan to make cannabis legal at 21 leaves opening for organized crime | CBC News
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the incoming Quebec government's plan to raise the legal age for smoking cannabis to 21 could leave an opening for organized crime.

Speaking to reporters this morning on the last day of a trip to Armenia, Trudeau said increasing the legal age could undermine one of the federal law's key aims — eliminating the black market.

Trudeau said he hopes to discuss the matter further with the province's premier-designate, François Legault, whose party was elected Oct. 1.
 

Ted Williams' head

It's freezing in here!
Sep 23, 2015
11,283
19,102
Terrorists need to have their citizenship REVOKED. #realtalk

I was watching TV the other day and some terrorist asshole left Canada to join ISIS, I guess turned bitch when they started getting their ass kicked, got grabbed trying to enter Turkey and now he wants to come back to Canada.

If Trudeau lets this cocksucker in, he should be stripped of the PM position and thrown in jail.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Terrorists need to have their citizenship REVOKED. #realtalk

I was watching TV the other day and some terrorist asshole left Canada to join ISIS, I guess turned bitch when they started getting their ass kicked, got grabbed trying to enter Turkey and now he wants to come back to Canada.

If Trudeau lets this cocksucker in, he should be stripped of the PM position and thrown in jail.
How could he not let them back in? Do you think Turkey wants to keep them in their country indefinitely?
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
It is not a new problem, no one said it was a new problem. But because it has happened before we should turn belly up and continue to allow it to happen at the govts will?
Not at all. I'm just enjoying the show of people being bent out of shape about it now, when it's been going on under their noses for generations and they couldn't have cared less because it didn't effect them.

Previous to the new laws a BAC required a 'reasonable suspicion', post new laws it does not and a failure is now a criminal conviction. Big difference. One infringes on our Constitutional Rights, one does not.
The bar for "reasonable suspicion" was always absurdly low, and you're going to have to way, way back to find a time where a BAC failure didn't result in a conviction. Refusing to provide a BAC sample also results in a conviction that carries the same penalty. People pulled over on suspicion of DUI haven't had the right to due process in a very long time. All of this legislation is a direct result of "if it only saves one life!" syndrome.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Not at all. I'm just enjoying the show of people being bent out of shape about it now, when it's been going on under their noses for generations and they couldn't have cared less because it didn't effect them.
It is not uncommon for people to 'not care' about things that dont impact them directly. This doesnt mean we should sit back and let the Liberals slowly claw away at our Charter Rights.


The bar for "reasonable suspicion" was always absurdly low, and you're going to have to way, way back to find a time where a BAC failure didn't result in a conviction. Refusing to provide a BAC sample also results in a conviction that carries the same penalty. People pulled over on suspicion of DUI haven't had the right to due process in a very long time. All of this legislation is a direct result of "if it only saves one life!" syndrome.
The legislation has changed drastically. Reasonable suspicion has been removed from the equation. Under the new legislation, the police would be legally allowed to demand a physically evasive test on any and all drivers leading to potential criminal charges. Previous to this new legislation, reasonable suspicion was required to demand a BAC test and failure of that test or refusal of that test was not a criminal conviction unless you were a repeat offender. We dont have the right to drive in Canada but we do have the right not to be detained without reasonable suspicion so I would restate that the laws are changing drastically and are even more infringing on Canadians fundamental rights and freedoms.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
failure of that test or refusal of that test was not a criminal conviction unless you were a repeat offender.
I'm pretty sure DUI has been a criminal offence since like the 20's. Unless you're suggesting that failing, or refusing a BAC test leaves you the ability to be found not guilty of either charge.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
I'm pretty sure DUI has been a criminal offence since like the 20's. Unless you're suggesting that failing, or refusing a BAC test leaves you the ability to be found not guilty of either charge.
Under the current system, failure to provide a breath test is not a criminal charge.

Failing a BAC test doesnt always result in charges. What is it? .03-.07 is a driving infraction and .08 and above is a criminal charge?