Alcohol vs marijuana

[/pine]

...tax-generating drug.

So how will the "reefer revenuers" know if legal taxes have been paid on the pot?...will there be tax evasion charges brought against those suspected of possessing homegrown or black market weed?...will there be DNA strands they can test for developed?

 

[motownbrowne]

So how will the "reefer revenuers" know if legal taxes have been paid on the pot?...will there be tax evasion charges brought against those suspected of possessing homegrown or black market weed?...will there be DNA strands they can test for developed?

I suppose it ought to be like moonshine and homebrew. If you live where it's legal to buy, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to grow your own (unless you're in violation of reasonable regulations). You should be able to give it to friends as well, in my opinion. You start selling though, and ATF(MJ) should step in with fines and or jail time. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the way it works for alcohol.

 

[k0ua]

My main point is that MJ impairment laws including reliable road-side impairment tests need to in place before it is actively marketed as a recreational tax-generating drug.

So how will the "reefer revenuers" know if legal taxes have been paid on the pot?...will there be tax evasion charges brought against those suspected of possessing homegrown or black market weed?...will there be DNA strands they can test for developed?

Good questions...That I don't have the answers for.

 

[3930dave]

So how will the "reefer revenuers" know if legal taxes have been paid on the pot?...will there be tax evasion charges brought against those suspected of possessing homegrown or black market weed?...will there be DNA strands they can test for developed?

Same way booze is controlled here, via the source and pipeline/distribution. In Ontario, the only place that will be selling govt MJ next year is our incumbent, govt owned, LCBO that presently sells hard liquor. No doubt, our province is probably going to hire another 2 or 3,000 tax inspectors - "To Protect the Public".

I have no dog in this fight (consumption wise), but a quick summary of the recent news here:

As govt gears up to sell recreational MJ, most/all of the independent shops that were around are being forced out of business. They weren't operating legally to start with, but had often just been ignored.

Follow the money..... most of the govts focus today is battling over who gets what cut. Feds control the legislation, but the provinces get stuck with enforcement and all the other direct expenses. Provinces, naturally, want more of a % of these new taxes than what the feds are willing to give them. Not as overtly bloody as cartels battling it out, but the driving reason is the same in both cases..... $$$$

It sounds like there will be an exemption. You will be allowed to cultivate a certain # of MJ plants for personal consumption only.

So, based on what we have been discussing, shouldn't there be a new personal exemption for operating a still ? :confused3:

Rgds, D.

 

[/pine]

Same way booze is controlled here, via the source and pipeline/distribution. In Ontario, the only place that will be selling govt MJ next year is our incumbent, govt owned, LCBO that presently sells hard liquor.

I have no dog in this fight (consumption wise), but a quick summary of the recent news here:

As govt gears up to sell recreational MJ, most/all of the independent shops that were around are being forced out of business. They weren't operating legally to start with, but had often just been ignored.

Follow the money..... most of the govts focus today is battling over who gets what cut. Feds control the legislation, but the provinces get stuck with enforcement and all the other direct expenses. Provinces, naturally, want more of a % of these new taxes than what the feds are willing to give them. Not as overtly bloody as cartels battling it out, but the driving reason is the same in both cases..... $$$$

It sounds like there were be an exemption - you will be allowed to cultivate a certain # of MJ plants for personal consumption only. So, based on what we have been discussing, shouldn't there be a new personal exemption for operating a still ? :confused3:

Rgds, D.

It makes sense that it "could" be done the same as tobacco but then to be legal it would have to be packaged like cigars and cigarettes etc...the depictions I've seen in CO etc. show it being sold loose.

 

[ovrszd]

Fatality Facts

IIHS only tracks alchohol >.08 in terms of substance abuse. I've known people that can't walk/talk properly well below .08.

Long ago, Transport Canada put together a program testing the driving skills of people impaired on various substances, on a closed course. Some of the most surprising results were with people who'd had just one drink, but were taking an OTC cough/cold/allergy medication. Yep, tells you not to do that on the consumer packaging, but plenty of people pay no attention.

There are lots of alcohol related crashes that don't show up in the official stats, and "other" drug impairments don't seemed to be tracked at all.

The 3 types of lies - Lies, **** Lies, and Statistics are one reason I pay attention to what has been going on at street-level....

EMS has it tough - even with all lights going at the side of the road, they still get hit, including by drivers not "on" something.

Police cruiser got folded in half by a dump-truck a few years back. Cruiser was parked on the side of the 401 w. lights ON, middle of Toronto, daylight, good weather. Fortunately, the LEO was not in the cruiser at the time.

The above reality being on my mind meant that the 2 times over the years that I've changed a flat on the side of an expressway meant that while I may never qualify for a NASCAR pit crew, my times on those 2 days were not that far off either :thumbsup: .

Friend of mine owns a heavy-tow company. Was put in hospital by a roadside hit like you describe. Woman driver was a known-heavy drinker that squeezed him between her vehicle and his truck. She took off and disappeared/hid the vehicle for long enough that no DUI charge could be made.

Summer long weekend about 2 years ago, a drunk dump-truck driver hit the Burlington Skyway bridge superstructure with his raised dump bed, at highway speed. All witnesses agreed, the guy was blotto drunk. Fast forward to the court case - it gets thrown out, as it took the OPP too long to administer the final blood test. Can't imagine why, they only had about a million vehicles to redirect off that bridge .

There are still significant accidents happening where alcohol is the primary cause, that don't show up in the official reporting.

But, you get no argument there from me Richard; there is a big problem in general with people doing everything but paying attention to their driving when behind the wheel. Those Nissan commercials you describe seriously irritate me too. I'll be surprised if Nissan doesn't get sued for portraying a soft-roader mall crawler blasting past heavy equipment operating in an off-highway scene.

Most of us recognize that the relatively strict (compared to 50 years ago) alcohol related driving laws have had a measurable impact on reducing drunk-driving to the lower levels of today. Few of us would want to rescind our drunk-driving laws.

My main point is that MJ impairment laws including reliable road-side impairment tests need to in place before it is actively marketed as a recreational tax-generating drug.

Rgds, D.

No argument here at all Dave. I agree with everything you said. I don't like the electronic monitoring systems being "pimped" at us on vehicles now because I think they make the driver complacent in their duties of situational awareness. Just like driving under the influence does.

 

[aczlan]

My main point is that MJ impairment laws including reliable road-side impairment tests need to in place before it is actively marketed as a recreational tax-generating drug.

IMO, they should be in place before it is legalized.

Aaron Z

 

[3930dave]

No argument here at all Dave. I agree with everything you said. I don't like the electronic monitoring systems being "pimped" at us on vehicles now because I think they make the driver complacent in their duties of situational awareness. Just like driving under the influence does.

I am with you on the 'lectronic distractions issue :thumbsup:

Sadly, some folks think the vehicle manufacturers are not putting enough screens in !

Vancouver driver had phone and tablet tied to steering wheel - BBC News

More directly related to thread title..... ^ is that a bag of weed on the floor of the car ? Wait, it's Vancouver, of course it is :laughing:

Rgds, D.

 

[ovrszd]

I am with you on the 'lectronic distractions issue :thumbsup:

Sadly, some folks think the vehicle manufacturers are not putting enough screens in !

Vancouver driver had phone and tablet tied to steering wheel - BBC News

More directly related to thread title..... ^ is that a bag of weed on the floor of the car ? Wait, it's Vancouver, of course it is :laughing:

Rgds, D.

Good one!!!

 

[RobertBrown]

Although marijuana is legal in our state........I don't use the stuff. I do have a beer, whiskey or glass of wine on occasion and have for many years. Seems that marijuana might be a healthier choice????

Alcohol and marijuana have very different health effects here's which is worse, according to science

I think it depends on how much and how often....and the delivery system.
Burning marijuana releases carcinogens. I suspect that vaporizing is less of a threat but I don't know that to be true.
For me, small quantities of alcohol causes much less impairment than small quantities of MJ. I find that even the smallest quantities of MJ makes it difficult to perform even the most rudimentary tasks.
For that reason, I don't use MJ and haven't in many years.
Having said that, I think MJ can be less safe and consequently less healthy. Mostly be cause I never use large quantities of either.
YMMV.
I think you should acquire some cannibis, use it and report back....hopefully, immediately after use.

 

[goeduck]

I think you should acquire some cannibis, use it and report back....hopefully, immediately after use.

That won’t be possible, he will be too busy raiding the fridge.

 

[Sigarms]

THIS is the issue with weed...

Pennsylvania couple sues police after police misidentify plant as pot - ABC15 Arizona

Imagine if those people were your parents...

 

[k0ua]

THIS is the issue with weed...

Pennsylvania couple sues police after police misidentify plant as pot - ABC15 Arizona

Imagine if those people were your parents...

OH, man!.. the chit is going to hit the fan over this one. Not only do you have a bunch of idiot moron cops, you also have an idiot moron insurance agent. I bet he isn't appointed with Nationwide for much longer... Hah! "nationwide is on your side"... uh... not in this case. If I was on the jury, I would be awarding the couple a hefty sum...And several officers on that force need to have their fanny's kicked.

 

[Doofy]

WOWZA! Didn't people used to be smarter?

 

[Sigarms]

OH, man!.. the chit is going to hit the fan over this one. Not only do you have a bunch of idiot moron cops, you also have an idiot moron insurance agent. I bet he isn't appointed with Nationwide for much longer... Hah! "nationwide is on your side"... uh... not in this case. If I was on the jury, I would be awarding the couple a hefty sum...And several officers on that force need to have their fanny's kicked.

This is my only point...I understand that weed growers can be dangerous, and the police need to protect themselves, but given the couples age, added I'm certain the police could of ran some back ground checks on them, couldn't they have at least talk to them first about what was going on, THEN arrest them afterwards? I would think all police departments now understand what can happen if they really handle a situation badly and how the world can now find out about it.

My only question, and what doesn't add up, is why was the woman ONLY wearing underpants? Not certain what time of day they "raided" the house, but no way in heck would my wife only be in underpants if she knew ANYONE was at the door.

 

[Bird]

One problem with news stories is that they never get the whole story. So naturally that story leaves a lot of questions for most of us. It does sound bad for the police officers IF IT'S ALL ACCURATE.

It kind of reminds me of a time when we had a guy trying to sell marijuana on the street in downtown Dallas. At least that was what he was telling potential customers. But what he actually had in that baggie was oregano.:laughing:

 

[MossRoad]

I don't know about back then, but I know nowadays, fake pot or not, you still go to jail trying to sell it. Same thing with baking powder and coke, mint and pot, oregano and pot, etc...

 

[Sigarms]

I don't know about back then, but I know nowadays, fake pot or not, you still go to jail trying to sell it. Same thing with baking powder and coke, mint and pot, oregano and pot, etc...

Unless you playing a joke on your cousin:laughing:

 

[jerrybob]

I think it depends on how much and how often....and the delivery system.
Burning marijuana releases carcinogens. I suspect that vaporizing is less of a threat but I don't know that to be true.
For me, small quantities of alcohol causes much less impairment than small quantities of MJ. I find that even the smallest quantities of MJ makes it difficult to perform even the most rudimentary tasks.
For that reason, I don't use MJ and haven't in many years.
Having said that, I think MJ can be less safe and consequently less healthy. Mostly be cause I never use large quantities of either.
YMMV.
I think you should acquire some cannibis, use it and report back....hopefully, immediately after use.

Took your advice........where's my keyboard? Anybody ever tell you your picture looks like George Burns? Where's my hat? I hear music.....no wait......it's the refrig. running! Here Boy......come on......hey.....I don't have a dog! This cannabis stuff doesn't affect me at all..........who's tall? Who asking?

 

[jerrybob]

OH, man!.. the chit is going to hit the fan over this one. Not only do you have a bunch of idiot moron cops, you also have an idiot moron insurance agent. I bet he isn't appointed with Nationwide for much longer... Hah! "nationwide is on your side"... uh... not in this case. If I was on the jury, I would be awarding the couple a hefty sum...And several officers on that force need to have their fanny's kicked.

Why would the police not allow this grandma to put on some pants? Four hours? I agree......cops....in this case......were morons and should be fired.