You should reread the decisions made in court and tell me again who has their..."ideas" all wrong.
McLellan...
- Thread starter oddish
- Start date
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Court decisions have nothing to do with the way a task force works [and court decisions based on s7 interests not present in recreational have little to nothing to do with it either]
Blair has been given policy development duties, and if you interpret that as 'being a figurehead' I'm really not sure what to tell you.
Blair has been given policy development duties, and if you interpret that as 'being a figurehead' I'm really not sure what to tell you.
cannadan
Well-Known Member
I don't trust them not to mess things up first.....and cause a lot more grief over this issue.....
the courts have spoken and we know we are basically safe as mmj patients, but many of those who voted for this
were rec people and they may not get what they think they are getting...
This should be a no brainer....
make the plant legal and let the markets work themselves out....like any other commodity.
People who want to grow and sell...would have to open a legal business and pay taxes is all...
If too many try their hand at this market....there would be business failures as well...but also some success stories, I'm quite sure
for it to be a fair market rather than a fixed market....where only qualfied players can participate....anyone...that's right anyone...should be able to take the business spirit and run with it...
Who would tell you ...sorry you cant grow corn, barley, hops and a host of other plants....
the courts have spoken and we know we are basically safe as mmj patients, but many of those who voted for this
were rec people and they may not get what they think they are getting...
This should be a no brainer....
make the plant legal and let the markets work themselves out....like any other commodity.
People who want to grow and sell...would have to open a legal business and pay taxes is all...
If too many try their hand at this market....there would be business failures as well...but also some success stories, I'm quite sure
for it to be a fair market rather than a fixed market....where only qualfied players can participate....anyone...that's right anyone...should be able to take the business spirit and run with it...
Who would tell you ...sorry you cant grow corn, barley, hops and a host of other plants....
Gquebed
Well-Known Member
You are just wrong. They are on the committee. They will do what committees do, which is collect information then make recomendations to the MPs who will ignore most of the info from those they dont like on the committee and write the laws based on the info they take from those they do like on the commitee. They may have some influence, true, but not much given their backgrounds. If you dont understand basic politics ...thats too bad... i mean this is what they all do with comittees...they are a showpiece...nothing more...
And i think you need to be wrong on this so you can whine about what may ir may not happen...
Last edited:
Gquebed
Well-Known Member
Blair is the spokesperson for the taskforce. He was announced as such. It was also declared that he is to give info/advice on how specific policing matters might arise and be managed when legalization comes along. He will have some valuable contributions to make as far as practical matters go. But that does not make him a policy maker. Not in the least. It barely qualifies him as an advisor. JT has plenty of high priced legal talent to write the policies/law....
TheDizzyBizzy
Well-Known Member
I notice our resident Liberal apologist is notably absent from this thread. Surely this is just a big misunderstanding and not more nanny state prohibition 2.0, right? Right? Surely Justin isn't Harper Lite! No, not that! 
TheDizzyBizzy
Well-Known Member
I have little sympathy for anyone who voted for the Liberals thinking they would do anything different than what they said, and what they said, was 'blah blah blah protect the children marijuana is dangerous anyone who grows it is a gang member blah blah blah." ALL they did was adopt the CONHARPER narrative and relabel it 'Legalization'.
Anyone who voted for that expecting it to be anything different than prohibition is a fool asking for their freedom to be taken.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Who they appoint to the task force is 'suggestive', but you'll get the real proof when they announce the MMPR amendments. This is where they pretty much unilaterally write the rules so I imagine if they're going to screw up legalization, MMPR amendments is where they'll do the 'worst'.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Well thank you for your expert opinion, Dizzy. The rest of us would never have expected that legalization and prohibition were the same thing, man they had us fooled. We sure are grateful you are here to show us the way.
P.S. How do you figure they pulled off that whole ending alcohol prohibition thing? Or maybe they are just SAYING booze is legal, when it's actually prohibition 2.0. Can you clear that up for us?
P.S. How do you figure they pulled off that whole ending alcohol prohibition thing? Or maybe they are just SAYING booze is legal, when it's actually prohibition 2.0. Can you clear that up for us?
cannadan
Well-Known Member
pretty much any agriculture product there is.
I did not say there would be zero regulation ...just that participation should not be limited by some elite licence
that costs millions to obtain...
A license to make money
or
A license to save ones own life
to think you could do both with this is sad......