Marijuana Growing and Dealing Standards, Not Barriers

Recently, Health Canada met with med pot industry representatives and individual dispensary spokespeople, of which a certain Marc Boris St. Maurice was one. According to St. Maurice, this exchange occurred:

Health Canada: “What are the minimum requirements, in your opinion, for the person in charge of quality?”

Marc Boris St. Maurice: “I think you would need someone with both microbiology experience and someone who has experience cultivating.”

Now I assume that the reason Mr. St. Maurice brought up “microbiology” was that, sometimes, there are mold problems with cannabis growing. An activist who was concerned with making sure that the cannabis economy wouldn’t become some sort of super-stratified market that only those who could afford thousands of dollars of tuition to get a degree in microbiology in order to participate in might have suggested that standards could be set up that would allow med pot dispensary owners to take their cannabis in for testing to a laboratory.

To his credit, St. Maurice did say, “I’m of the opinion it would be wrong to exclude people who have a record of marijuana production, because they have the experience. It’d be like having a gay rights club and only letting straight people in.”

St. Maurice is right about that. Nobody should be prevented from selling pot just because they have had legal problems from selling pot in the past. In fact, the only reason I can think of for excluding someone from selling pot is that they were convicted of either 1) committing fraud, or 2) poisoning someone. It actually makes sense to allow the previously-criminal and previously-violent people to quit their life of crime and turn over a new pot-leaf – call it the “swords into plowshares” transformation of the black market economy. It will allow us to transform the majority of the black market into a legit, respectable market, and give the dangerous people amongst us a real incentive to be of good behaviour.

But just as it makes no sense to exclude the legally-compromised folks from the economy, it makes no sense to prevent someone without a microbiology degree from selling cannabis, or other dried herbs, or food produce, or anything else that could mould. It makes no sense to prevent people without microbiology degrees from participating in the cannabis economy … unless, perhaps, you’re trying to make points with those who favor hierarchical, economically-stratified, tuition-limiting, power-tripping control freaks by telling them what you think they want to hear.

The rest of the non-pot economy operates on a “those with money enough for tuition should be the only ones allowed to make lots of money”, so why not take the one economy that doesn’t work that way – cannabis – and make it more in line with the way the rest of the world works? It sure would prevent those without money from getting too uppity or out of control. I am 100% certain that the people in control would love to hear that from all the pot activists, just as I am 100% certain there will be opportunists who wish to become – and understand what they must say to become – the people in control.

I see the same sort of “pot economy exclusivizing” attempts happening in the USA. There have been some concerns about how little regulations there are in the California med pot market. Most of the articulated concerns there center around dispensaries using “sexy nurses” to sell pot. Here are a few links:

http://cannabiswarrior.com/2011/11/29/im-too-sexy-for-my-meds-too-sexy-for-my-meds/
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2011/11/08/putting-medical-cannabis-on-trial/
http://thepuffingtonhost.com/is-political-correctness-from-within-hurting-the-cause/
http://ericspitznagel.com/content/published-stories/this-bud%E2%80%99s-for-you/

One of these, the “Medical Marijuana Regulation and Control Act” (MMRCA) is similar to Americans for Safe Access’s “Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Act” (MMRCTA).

They both make the same fundamental errors: they both

  • require everyone in the med pot industry – including drivers – to register, thus making it easy and cost effective for the Feds to – with a single subpoena – find out who everyone is and charge everyone,
  • make it very easy to set a limit of one dispensary per 50,000 people, thus creating a monopoly or cartel. In comparison, there is a limit of one wine retail outlet per 1,250 residents in big cities and one wine retail outlet per 2,500 residents in smaller towns.
  • create a med pot bureaucracy that is open to corruption instead of setting up transparent standards that make it easy for everyone to comply without having to know or kiss up to anyone, making corruption nearly impossible.
  • allow the licensing board to drag it’s heels for six months deciding whether or not to allow you to sell pot while you must pay rent on the location you’ve chosen to sell pot from – ensuring only the rich will be able to open up a retail outlet.

I spoke over the phone with Valerie Corral, the co-founder/director of the longest running medical marijuana distribution operation in the world – the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM – founded in 1993).

She pointed out that over-regulating the med pot industry in Colorado has not stopped the Feds from raiding – and local governments from banning – med pot dispensaries there. She’s right:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_19729182
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/colorado-medical-marijuan_n_1224205.html
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/12/Feds-Threaten-Colorado-Medical-Marijuana-Dispensaries
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/12/14/Crackdown-Colorado-s-Medical-Pot-Business-Horizon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/medical-marijuana-deadlin_n_1303712.html
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/02/10/Colorado-Judge-Denies-Request-Block-Fort-Collins-Ban-Medical-Marijuana-Businesses
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/01/13/feds-crack-down-on-colorado-medical-pot-dispensaries/
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/feds_announce_colorado_medical_marijuana_crackdown.php

The Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry, which is already in effect, stipulates that;

ii) “Primary care-giver” means a person other than the patient and the patient’s physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has significant responsibility for managing the wellbeing of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition. A person shall be listed as a primary care-giver for no more than five patients in the medical marijuana program registry at any given time unless a waiver has been granted for exceptional circumstances, as per Regulation Ten below.

But when one goes on to read “Regulation Ten”, it is unclear what “circumstances” allows one to qualify for such a waiver.

Valerie Corral pointed out:

The Colorado initiative would prevent WAMM from serving the sick, dying, and financially marginalized patients. In Colorado there is no part of the law that encourages service to the poor in the form of the true collective. In fact, their regulations encourage an entrepreneurial model, with service to the patient at the bottom.

She continued:

It’s the same story of rich protecting their interests. As multinational pharmaceutical mogul GW Pharmaceuticals, and others in the competitive corporate market prepare to assume control of the medical marijuana industry and its potential mult-billion dollar industry, the question arises; could we as the fundamental force behind this movement do something besides join in the struggle to become corporate idealist?

Did we completely miss our opportunity to create a unified force and not succumb to becoming the pharmaceutical industry?

Ordinary people, growers, collective participants, old school activists with honest standards can’t afford to be a part of this mega-dollar industry. But mostly it is the marginalized patient who suffers. In Colorado, they have extremely rigid standards – 24 hour surveillance – and no mechanism to serve the poor. When they created a regulatory system in Santa Cruz county, they also wrote in a exemption that allows for pre-existing collectives. There are no such exemptions in any of the present California State-wide medical marijuana regulations. In fact one threatens to eliminate WAMM. How could they be so ignorant as to betray history?

I don’t think it is as intentional as it is a fundamental flaw in the way they see their future roles. Some of these activist lawmakers actually think that they will become the new corporation. I just don’t believe that the corporate power wielders perceive a potential $12.5 million industry as something that they care to share.

She sent me the link to the Colorado MM Registry on her work computer, a twelve-year-old beast. Corral has, virtually, taken an oath of poverty and hardly takes enough in donations to meet her basic necessities. I believe that people should have the right to choose to live that way, but that any med pot regulations that do not allow people to choose to make enough money for dentistry or computers or vacations or raising children (including providing tuition for them) was unjust.

In the process of fact-checking the story, Corral corrected me a little:

I haven’t taken an oath of poverty. On the contrary I am extremely fortunate and through the strangest set of circumstances, I live in one of the most beautiful places in the world. For how much longer I cannot say. But that is for many reasons. I just prefer to work with people than I do with pot (as you call it). I am now writing you from my MacBook Pro.

Corral continued:

Shouldn’t you ask who you serve what they want before you give it to them? Long ago Ross Perot flew frozen turkeys to Indonesia for relief after a Hurricane … problem was that Indonesians don’t eat frozen turkeys – they sat rotting on the runway. People should consult with us before regulating us. They didn’t.

Had we – the Californian cannabis community – coalesced into a unified force, devoted to the mission we convinced Californians that we were committed to, to service, transparency, and accountability, we would have created an infallible model. Instead of taking us out one by one, we could have become a union of service, an invincible force. But we didn’t, and now we are suffering from the problems we have engendered; presuming that the mega-corporations want us at the table. Not likely.

I asked her about Dennis Peron, and how he was allowed to make enough money to be politically-active, and whether or not she thought he should have been able to do so:

The whole origin of medical marijuana activists came out of gay men who were tired of being beaten and slammed. When it came to medical marijuana – they just put it down on the list of all the shit they already had to deal with. Dennis is a revolutionary. But it’s not about revolution, it’s about evolution, John Trudell so aptly told me… we don’t need to revolve back to where we were, he said … we need to evolve beyond.

I agree with Corral that had nobody attempted to create a cannabis cartel with Prop 19 and everyone had focused on putting the patient first, to being accountable and transparent, the movement would have been much harder to attack than it has been.

I feel that people who wish to earn a living from selling cannabis should be able to do so – or continue to do so. I just don’t believe that one person should be making all of – or most of – the money.

What we should be united around is the right to be equal with the wine grape growers and wine merchants – and eventually the coffee bean growers and coffee merchants. These growers and merchants don’t have to pay tuition for a degree in microbiology (or anything else) in order to be legitimate, they don’t have to close down if they’re 1000 feet from a school, they don’t have to wait six months for a license, and they are not limited to one retail outlet per 50,000 residents.

If these merchants choose to run a not-for-profit operation they have that freedom, but they can also make a decent living for themselves. No one person or group is allowed to monopolize the sales of all the wine or all the coffee.

If we all unite together and demand equality with these other substance providers, everyone will have enough for our needs – without all the greed.

David Malmo-Levine

Comments

24 Comments

  1. DML on

    “Personally, no. I am not in the business or the hobby. Does the absence of evidence serve as evidence of absence? Of course not.”

    I never said “no evidence exists” … I said “I have yet to see any evidence” … until we see some, we probably shouldn’t get too worried … the wine industry seems very spread out amongst many growers and retailers, and there’s no indication that there are problems.

    “The very question is fallacious and I have difficulty tolerating it on that basis. Perhaps before going full steam ahead on the wine regulation train, there should be some effort to study the ways in which it is flawed, and perhaps restrictive.”

    I’ve made the effort – you should now make the effort to prove that the information is incorrect:

    D) Sizes of Each Economy and the Estimated Number of People Each Industry Employs

    According to the California-based Wine Institute, which represents over 1,000 wineries and affiliated businesses, as of 2010 there are:
    •3,364 bonded wineries – nearly all family-owned (the number increasing nearly every year since 1965), (43)
    •4,600 grape growers,
    •531,000 acres of wine grapes,
    •197 million cases of wine sold per year.

    N) Existing Regulatory Models in California and Elsewhere

    Upon careful examination of the many documents available at the website of the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control is one entitled “2005 Moratorium Counties/Cities”. In it, we learn that:
    “On January 1, 1998, Section 23817.5 was amended to permanently establish a moratorium on the issuance of off-sale beer and wine licenses (Type 20) in cities and counties where the ratio of Type 20 licenses exceeds one for each 2,500 inhabitants. In the city and county of San Francisco, the ratio has been established as one for each 1,250 inhabitants. The San Francisco computation combines off-sale beer and wine license with off-sale general licenses for the purpose of establishing the ratio.” (164)
    In other words, there are “caps” on the number of retail outlets, but they are in the thousands – even tens of thousands – for big cities, and in the hundreds for smaller jurisdictions. For example, if Los Angeles, with a population of 14.8 million, is allowed to have as many places to buy off-sale Cannabis as off-sale beer and wine (one retailer for every 1,250) then Los Angeles will have 11,840 Cannabis retail outlets. At the same rate, San Francisco will permit 5,936 cafes, and Oakland, at the “town rate” of one retailer per 2,500 residents, will permit 160 pot cafes.

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/07/07/Crystal-Clear-Glasses-and-Unbleached-Rollies

    “”Wine” is pre restrictive, considering it is merely a subset of the group “alcohol”. Spirits are regulated differently than wine, due to a more dangerous nature of distillation. Some however might like to think “no, it’s because its’ more potent”. We already enjoy that artificial wedge issue in the legalization movement, where anything beyond X% is too dangerous. Regulating like wine doesn’t resolve that by ignoring it, instead it invites it by definition. So which strains would you have banned, or subject to corporate production only?”

    Nothing in the RMLW initiative will allow any strain banned or monopolized – which is why you’re not bothering to quote the initiative. You’re just making this stuff up.

    “Why is there a “wine valley”, concentrated in this one area? Is it artificially concentrated through legal zoning restrictions or naturally concentrated through geological zoning restrictions…. either way it is restricted and the visual evidence of concentration is merely symptomatic of that effect.”

    It’s because Canada is too cold to grow wine grapes anywhere else.

    “Same thing with liquor stores, and remember it’s relativistic. In a lot of places you can get a beer at macdonalds, you can’t here. In a lot of places you can get a six pack at the 7/11, here you can only get it at the LCBO.”

    “Here” as in Canada? You can buy off-sales from any bar and you can get beer and wine at the cold beer stores and you can buy beer and wine at the grocery store and the corner stores in Quebec. Where do you live?

    “Keep in mind also that a “large” selection doesn’t speak towards actual scope or breadth of “variety” in selection. I don’t need a few thousand choices of a regulated 2% max THC content because anything above that is a “spirit too dangerous for production”.”

    Show me where on planet earth they’ve limited THC content.

    “So this is the reality that bothers me about chanting “regulate like wine”. It’s ignorant of the reality, especially as it transitions from place to place.”

    Concerns over prohibtion – black-market violence, jacked up prices, lack of quality control, jail, persecution, lawyer’s fees, discrimination … all these are real. Your concerns over regulating like wine are all imaginary.

  2. Anonymous on

    “Perhaps. Do you know of anyone who was never able to get into the wine business in the first place due to the over-regulation of the industry?”

    Personally, no. I am not in the business or the hobby. Does the absence of evidence serve as evidence of absence? Of course not. The very question is fallacious and I have difficulty tolerating it on that basis. Perhaps before going full steam ahead on the wine regulation train, there should be some effort to study the ways in which it is flawed, and perhaps restrictive.

    “Are there any regulations that prevent you from making wine as potent as it’s been for thousands of years?”

    “Wine” is pre restrictive, considering it is merely a subset of the group “alcohol”. Spirits are regulated differently than wine, due to a more dangerous nature of distillation. Some however might like to think “no, it’s because its’ more potent”. We already enjoy that artificial wedge issue in the legalization movement, where anything beyond X% is too dangerous. Regulating like wine doesn’t resolve that by ignoring it, instead it invites it by definition. So which strains would you have banned, or subject to corporate production only?

    “But I also drive through the Okanagan wine valley in Canada and see a multitude of wine providers, and thousands of resturants and liquor stores with a large variety to choose from … ”

    Largely all conjecture and anecdotal, put forth as evidence to it being an open and welcoming industry. But it also says otherwise. Why is there a “wine valley”, concentrated in this one area? Is it artificially concentrated through legal zoning restrictions or naturally concentrated through geological zoning restrictions…. either way it is restricted and the visual evidence of concentration is merely symptomatic of that effect.

    Same thing with liquor stores, and remember it’s relativistic. In a lot of places you can get a beer at macdonalds, you can’t here. In a lot of places you can get a six pack at the 7/11, here you can only get it at the LCBO. The LCBO has been constantly derided for their lax selection and lately for their business practices that overspend on selections purposely to jack up the price.

    Keep in mind also that a “large” selection doesn’t speak towards actual scope or breadth of “variety” in selection. I don’t need a few thousand choices of a regulated 2% max THC content because anything above that is a “spirit too dangerous for production”.

    So this is the reality that bothers me about chanting “regulate like wine”. It’s ignorant of the reality, especially as it transitions from place to place.

  3. DML on

    “For example perhaps it’s not a question of who had to go out of business so much as it is one of who was never able to get into it at all in the first place.”

    Perhaps. Do you know of anyone who was never able to get into the wine business in the first place due to the over-regulation of the industry?

    “Of course you could “brew your own”, but only at a low potency… you know, just to be safe?”

    Are there any regulations that prevent you from making wine as potent as it’s been for thousands of years?

    “You continue to ignore the example of all other areas of systemic over regulation and their cumulative effects,…”

    No doubt other examples exist. The raw milk prohibitionists, CODEX alimentarius are just two off the top of my head. But I also drive through the Okanagan wine valley in Canada and see a multitude of wine providers, and thousands of resturants and liquor stores with a large variety to choose from … so I don’t see evidence of a monopoly or over-regulation in the wine industry, and welcome anyone with any evidence they can point to so I can understand the situation better. You’ve yet to provide such evidence … all you’ve provided are insults such as this one:

    “So are you being intellectually dishonest on purpose or is that just the best argument available to you.”

    Your straw man mis-stating of my argument is not the best argument available to me … just quote what I say and respond to my words from now on.

  4. Anonymous on

    Are you seriously so simplistic as to make “surviving in business” your only criteria for health or success in society? It’s kind of looking like it.

    Of course you do realize that you had to load the question in a favorable way to your framed argument in the first place, right?

    For example perhaps it’s not a question of who had to go out of business so much as it is one of who was never able to get into it at all in the first place.

    Maybe it’s also a question of, as with the LCBO, not being able to find a suitable selection to your taste, desires or needs. That is kind of important with weed, you know.Of course you could “brew your own”, but only at a low potency… you know, just to be safe? Is that a working model based on facts and actual risks or is it a contrived, reach around, compromise with the absurd?

    The extent to which it leans towards one or the other depends on where you’re looking at it from. If you see no potential, and specifically no counter movement, flanking your ideals, for further restriction than would be desirable, consider that you’re just not looking at it laterally, without blinders.

    So are you being intellectually dishonest on purpose or is that just the best argument available to you.

    You continue to ignore the example of all other areas of systemic over regulation and their cumulative effects, and particularly that it’s done to exclude and control competition. It is their way… it is their model, it is their MO. So you think this one, when all is said and done, will shit itself out of an old mold in different form?

    I believe Steve Jobs was quite clear in his meeting with Obama, that a company like Apple would never be interested in opening factories here for that reason. If a company like Apple finds the extent of their bureaucracy stifling, you can fucking bet you will too.

    Don’t insult even your own intelligence by pretending that regulation, like wine or otherwise, is anything but what it is: restrictive.

  5. DML on

    … and covered under the healthcare system.

    Furthermore, I’ve not limited my efforts to prevent over-regulation and monopoly of cannabis to the comment section … I’ve published on this issue many times, under my real name:

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19879

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19176

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/25832

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/3263.html

    http://www.potshot.ca/pm/index.php?n=Main.Potshot19

    I’ve been to the Supreme Court of Canada fighting for the right of all Canadians to grow, deal and smoke cannabis.

    … what have you done to stand up against over-regulation and monopoly … aside from comment here?

  6. DML on

    Do you know of any wine makers in the US or Canada that went out of business due to over-regulation?

    Do you know of any wine wholesalers or retailers in the US or Canada that went out of business due to over-regulation?

    If you can’t provide examples, maybe you’re imagining the problem.

  7. Anonymous on

    “six taxes” should of course say sin taxes.

    I’ve yet to hear a good argument for those btw. Anything more than a general sales tax is an atrocity and even that is too much. Should not the jobs be enough? (Why not? Because they’re too invested in prohibition) Shouldn’t the prisoners we now enjoy having a life of higher education and job opportunities be reason enough? (why not? Because we’re too invested in poverty and ignorance..)

  8. Anonymous on

    You have to appreciate that it’s relative. Look at the LCBO for example. That is well over regulated, where they enjoy a corrupt monopoly where they over price a small selection of low quality per their choosing and whereupon “six taxes” are constantly levied.

    As per the coffee industry.. I would mention tim hortons but it’s never been proven that the swill they overcharge for is actually coffee.

    While they enjoy a defacto monopoly across most of canada, and not a regulatory one, the effect is that of a monopoly non the less.

    Can I make my own? Yes, and when it comes to beer and wine (not spirits) those provisions came after the fact, I believe through court cases. However when people are begging to be regulated and taxed, I see no emphasis at all on those provisions which should in fact be primary.

    I personally dislike my inalienable rights used by groups as bait for a shark that’d swallow me whole and puke out my stripped bones.

    This is what happens when you underestimate or misread the opponent, and so the only ground gained here is as you said, where the public becomes more engaged and better informed. As such it’s important to be informing them properly rather than by some sly agenda that even though doesn’t support a monopoly, supports a monopoly.

    My point to the link I gave you that I hope you didn’t miss, was the corporate bureaucratic tactic of regulating the little guy right the fk out of any possibility of even his own piece of the pie. Its’ the tactic that says “you must be this tall to ride”, where they make it twice or ten times as tall as you are, and then say “anyone can ride, everyone has a chance (if only they’re tall enough)”

    This is just the way they work things so that they remain that 1% and everyone else gets the trickle. It would be foolish not to expect that to happen here.

  9. Anonymous on

    Died?? LOL….. didn’t even slow it down. You can’t make the truth illegal without it costing you all respect.

  10. Anonymous on

    http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret.html

    You can see from that that regulating people into helplessness is their oldest tactic.

    You couldn’t build yourself or your neighbor an amplifier for example, because you don’t know the legal standards on how to make it safe. You can’t access those standards, because you can’t afford them.

    Reminds me of Overgrow.com. That was a high quality source of vetted information that concentrated quality info instead of an advertising shill culture.

    The cops took it down to prevent people from accessing that information which would allow them to undertake growing in an informed well, safely.

    Then they turn around and say look…. fire… it’s impossible for people to grow safely on their own (because we made sure of it).

    Only the large corporations can do it right. Only we can be trusted.

    Time for a global union!

  11. Anonymous on

    A global union

  12. Anonymous on

    Most of us also know that people who use legal drugs are going to get high.

    Is a drug somehow less dangerous because you paid tax on it? Does the high vanish when it comes from a white coat lab? The addicts of Oxycontin would disagree, as did the judge over their class action lawsuit to that affect.

    Should I have to pay a sin tax that makes me sick just so that I can not be sick? Or should I have to take a “legal” drug that is certain to kill me.

  13. DML on

    Ah yes … your non-answer is what I expected from your yellow-bellied anonymous armchair activist self.

    You were too lazy/scared/stupid to lift a finger to save yourself, so you abdicated that responsibility onto activists such as myself and got angry when we didn’t deliver your salvation to your door on a sliver platter on the day you wished it delivered.

    It doesn’t work like that.

    This is how it actually works … everyone is responsible for saving themselves. You don’t get to heap that task onto someone else. You have to ask yourself “what can I do” and then do your best to do whatever it is you can do. Some people can do more, and some people can only do a little … but you can’t foist expectations on those who do more to pull your weight for you. Those who do their best to save themselves find out how hard it actually is, and they tend not to be resentful of those who do lots when the best results don’t arise.

    Now that I’m done answering my question to you, I will answer your question to me. I’ve noticed that the Supreme Court of Canada is not interested in defending recreational cannabis use, cultivation and sale. So that option is out. Then there is the Harper Government, which is unlikely to support any sort of reform whatsoever. So what does that leave us? It leaves us with 1) educating people about cannabis, and 2) expanding the definition of what “medicinal use” means to include all users. Which is what I’ve been busy doing:

    http://www.potshot.ca/pm/

    http://www.herbmuseum.ca/image/tid/43

    http://www.stressedanddepressed.ca/dev/booklets.html

    Now … if you can’t be bothered to lift a finger to save yourself, don’t attack those of us who aren’t that lazy/scared and/or stupid to.

  14. Anonymous on

    Save yourself if you cam & while you’re at it
    ease off on a little on your blustery numbered commands for rules of engagement..
    Dave get over yourself- Everybody else has managed to

  15. DML on

    I’ll go ahead and answer that question so long as you admit to either 1) failing in whatever attempts you made to save yourself, or 2) doing nothing other than sitting on your ass waiting for people like me to save you. I’m 100% certain that my answer won’t be a fraction of a percent as pathetic as your answer.

  16. Anonymous on

    .. aside from selling time shares in anarchy governance experiments that nobody else seems to be into. The great alternative pot lifestyle is over, maybe add an exibit to your museum explaining why Vansterdam didn’t work out as planned and the rich white men prevailed

  17. DML on

    … aside from abdicate responsibility on to others?

  18. Anonymous on

    Old activist song : Legalize, Regulate and Tax : died with the passing of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets Act featuring mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug trafficking. That is the future dudes, nobody in the 420 community did anything about it but talk and whine and now here it is forever with us like herpes

    ………New song is
    : Never ever legalize- Regulate YOUR behavior – Fines not Taxes :

    Lower mainland BC is going to be the new killing fields,
    Jodie just has to wear a new dress while giving head to a microphone
    and then everything will be fine in the zoo

  19. Malcolm Kyle on

    Most of us know that individuals who use illegal drugs are going to get high – no matter what, so why do you not prefer they acquire them in stores that check IDs and pay taxes? Even if we could afford to put anti-narcotic police on every single street corner, we also know that at least half of them would soon become dealers themselves. Gifting the market in narcotics to ruthless criminals, foreign terrorists and corrupt law enforcement officials is seriously compromising our children’s future.

    We simply cannot continue with a policy that has proven itself to be a poison in the veins of practically every free nation on this planet. Even if you cannot bear the thought of people using drugs, there is absolutely nothing you, or any government, can do to stop them. We have spent 40 years and trillions of dollars on this dangerous farce; Prohibition will not suddenly and miraculously start showing different results.

    Do you actually believe you may personally have something to lose If we were to begin basing drug policy on science & logic instead of ignorance, hate and lies? Maybe you’re a police officer, a prison guard or a local/national politician. Possibly you’re scared of losing employment, overtime-pay, the many kick-backs and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks?

    Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition-engendered mayhem!

    Prohibition Prevents Regulation : Legalize, Regulate and Tax!