Discussions

Anyone else mad as I am about the laws for next year's majuanna being "legal". As in you can buy the product but can't grow it. The black market shall live on!

that anyone thought the "black market" wouldn't live on! Any thought of the propensity for condensation & mold without growers spending a LOT of money on ventilation etc? Then there would be people in apartments or other rentals wanting to grow; how might that have worked?? The biggest joke IMO is any "law" to keep our kids safe. Wow - like they don't smoke pot now !!!!

If we could grow our own and we put the drug dealers out of the weed sales business, what kind of drugs would they start pushing on kids.  
Cause I’m sure they aren’t just going to stop trying to earn an income if they can’t sell pot.

I don't use cannabis, but I find it really interesting how the provincial government approached this. From a conservative government perspective, I find it very troubling that they are trying to manipulate the growth of this drug to their own private interests. It is what I expected, and so it's not so surprising. Its interesting that the drug is going to be legal, and while I don't o:bject to the province monopolising selling it to generate revenue, it does seem very heavy handed that they are creating a system for which only very wealthy investors will be able to grow it. They have basically just set up a system in which highly funded groups will be the only ones to grow the product, and they are making this same activity illegal for someone wanting to do this for personal use, from home. It sounds to me like there needs to be a group assembled to file a class action lawsuit against the province. I would suggest any smaller grower who wants to sell into this "privatized" system but finds themselves excluded, to get together with like-minded individuals/groups and to file a class action that seeks to reverse these policies. It has been designed as a monopoly that kicks out people from participating in a market that wants to be owned by society's most rich and powerful. How typically expected, but I doubt it would stand up to court scrutiny.

You can brew beer or wine from home for personal use. No reason why you shouldn't be able to grow your own marijuana for personal use. This needs to be challenged in court. Monopolising the growing of marijuana to a few select, well funded, private companies needs to be also challenged. More evidence to a rigged economy set up by our governments who are ruling on behalf of their donors.

It should have always been legal. It's a plant. You grow it. If you want to pick some leaves, dry them out, crush them, roll them up and smoke them you should be allowed. If you distribute it, sell it or process it it some way that should be illegal. Of course, no government would ever pass up the opportunity for more tax revenue and chance to expand government, while ramming even more legislation down our throats, which in my opinion, is the only reason they are legalizing it now.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-14.1/page-4.html#docCont  
 
This is a less popular one, did you know you can legally grow your own Tobacco?  
 
BUT NOT THE DEVILS LETTUCE HALLELUJAH /sarcasm

I have to laugh at all of the provincial governments scrambling to come up with ways of enforcing stoned driving legislation, as if it's going to suddenly become a problem. Do these lawmakers actually believe that people haven't been driving after toking already? Do they actually think that because it will now be legal to smoke the stuff people are just now going to start driving after smoking it? If so, I have some shocking news for them. People have been smoking up and driving for the past 45 years. I doubt very much that legalizing marijuana will result in more than a 4 or 5 percent increase in the number of people who drive after smoking it. If they actually believe that pot smokers haven't been driving stoned until now it makes me wonder what the lawmakers been smokin'. What a farce.

its funny they talk about protecting the children and make the law 19 to use. correct me if I'm wrong but at 18 your consider an adult you can buy booze cigs and lets not forget you can vote and be processed in the courts as a adult. So tell me do I not have enough education to understand. I couldn't go into a bar or buy booze until I was 21 but I still was able to get it so come on politicians get with it your an adult at 18 your not a kid anymore.

gambling was illegal until the gov't got their paws into it. I remember covertly giving someone $5 to get me a Irish sweepstakes ticket back in the 60's.. All vices are illegal unless the gov't can make money from it....

So if I grow a couple of plants at home,  
 
a) it''s a ticket, not a criminal offence, so I''m probably not too upset if I get caught,  
 
b) how would anyone know? I don''t think the cops will care enough to get search warrants for a few plants if it''s not criminal. They''ll be going after the commercial growers.  
 
That said, it's maddening that cultivation will be legal federally and illegal provincially. From the outside, it looks like the decision was made to increase tax revenue on sales, which is not a good reason to regulate IMO.  
 
Edited by acidbasement, 2017-12-07 09:27:02

acidbasement said "So if I grow a couple of plants at home,     a) it''s a ticket, not a criminal offence, so I''m probably not too upset if I get caught,     b) how would anyone know? I don''t think the cops will care enough to get search warrants for a few plants if it''s not criminal. They''ll be going after the commercial growers.     That said, it's maddening that cultivation will be legal federally and illegal provincially. From the outside, it looks like the decision was made to increase tax revenue on sales, which is not a good reason to regulate IMO.     Edited by acidbasement, 2017-12-07 09:27:02"

They said you could face up to 1 year in jail or a $100,000 fine or BOTH.  
 
I wouldn't take the risk.

Triplethreat said "I have to laugh at all of the provincial governments scrambling to come up with ways of enforcing stoned driving legislation, as if it's going to suddenly become a problem. Do these lawmakers actually believe that people haven't been driving after toking already? Do they actually think that because it will now be legal to smoke the stuff people are just now going to start driving after smoking it? If so, I have some shocking news for them. People have been smoking up and driving for the past 45 years. I doubt very much that legalizing marijuana will result in more than a 4 or 5 percent increase in the number of people who drive after smoking it. If they actually believe that pot smokers haven't been driving stoned until now it makes me wonder what the lawmakers been smokin'. What a farce. "

has always known that people drive while high but now they have to deal with it because it is in the public eye.

I have the feeling this is going to end up making lots of lawyers rich.  
 
You cannot have a federal law stating the plant is legal, and then have a province ban its cultivation.  
 
I would assume federal law takes precedence, and someone will start a constitutional challenge.  
 
I do not think that the pallister government will want to hassle or the optics of jailing people for a couple of plants in their house.  
 
it is more to do with unlincensed commercial production

Personally, I don't think you would have anything to worry about (i.e. 1 year in jail or $100,000 fine) unless you are poor and unable to afford a lawyer to make a constitutional challenge of this law. The rich want to monopolise the growing of marijuana so they can line their own pockets. It's like the same strategy the meat packing industry did several decades ago. Large multi-national companies with lots of money bought out politicians who acted in their interest to squash the competition. They made regulations for the small operator so burdensome that the process was affordable unless you had lots of money to back you through a large facility. Same thing here, but in what is supposed to be a free and open marketplace, you can't have government tell the people it will only accept a small range of financially backed producers to grow this lucrative product, and tell everybody else they can't grow it. Besides, it's a plant, and government stepping in and telling people it's legal but you can't harvest it is undemocratic, noncompetitive, and anti-citizen. We've all got rights. Now it's just a question of who is going to stand up and exercise them, instead of the normal "being afraid" to step on your competitor's toes. No court would imprison anyone for growing their own medicine, nor would any higher court allow these types of malicious fines. The interesting part is that of the role of government. Governments are supposed to be there to look out for ALL OF THE PEOPLE. But when they look out for just a small segment of wealthy donors, and threaten the rest with fines and imprisonment, and use the public purse to defend their actions while forcing a taxpayer to pony up twice (once for the government costs, and twice for their own costs challenging government) then you know you live in a society that has an economy that is rigged in the interests of the special interest groups. I would encourage anyone to stand up for themselves and challenge these ridiculous laws in the courts, where I'm certain the government position will be one that loses. There is no doubt that citizens are increasingly finding themselves questioning the legitimacy of their governments, and the rigged economy they find themselves enslaved to.

Triplethreat said "I have to laugh at all of the provincial governments scrambling to come up with ways of enforcing stoned driving legislation, as if it's going to suddenly become a problem. Do these lawmakers actually believe that people haven't been driving after toking already? Do they actually think that because it will now be legal to smoke the stuff people are just now going to start driving after smoking it? If so, I have some shocking news for them. People have been smoking up and driving for the past 45 years. I doubt very much that legalizing marijuana will result in more than a 4 or 5 percent increase in the number of people who drive after smoking it. If they actually believe that pot smokers haven't been driving stoned until now it makes me wonder what the lawmakers been smokin'. What a farce. "

In the US accidents have crept up because of weed. I bet is it not just the jump in the number of user but also the police are looking for weed as a possible contributor more often.  
 
As far as the OP. 4 is not a issue. Manitoba could have left it legal. Yet if one spends the bucks on Hydroponics etc 4 is not enough. Open to abuse imo. Then even at four once big enough there is other issues as mentioned in a earlier post. There is no doubt in my mind if weed sales skyrocket we will have some increases in accidents. Enough to cause panic? No more than normal meds already do. Except this weed is recreational.  
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/health/drugged-driving-death-rates-report/index.html  
 
 
That article is a near waste of reading but google is full of similar. Again more users means more drivers. Now the Police will test. Some states have found little to no increase in deaths. I think it depends on what measuring stick these studies use. All accidents or fatal only??  
 
Edited by Doug, 2017-12-07 13:36:48

The hydroponics argument is a red herring. Hydroponic operations are not illegal. I can grow tomatoes in my basement hydroponically, and it would cause the same damage to the house as a cannabis grow op.  
 
My four hypothetical cannabis plants will go in dirt, same as my other house plants.

you have now graced us with two lengthy posts about the evils of government and right wing corporate conspiracies. Has it ever occurred to you that in the case of cannabis laws the government's desire to have some control over distribution and resale of the product has something to do with quality control? This is a plant with so many miraculous uses and benefits that what is truly criminal is that it has been illegal for as long as it has. When it becomes legal in July should the government simply open up the floodgates and let anyone grow and distribute it as they see fit? Once legal there will be many people trying it for the first time, and many people trying it for a variety of reasons. It's critical, especially in the early going that we have knowledgeable, professional people in well established and organized business growing, distributing and selling the product properly. Once we get past the stigma of cannabis use and it's no big deal (which I believe will happen quite quickly) perhaps the government will open it up for more retailers to be able to sell cannabis in the future. In the meantime this seems like a pretty good start to me.

Have you ever considered that you don't need to be one of only four licensed growers to achieve quality control? It's not a conspiracy. It's just a simple observation that only growers that are backed by MILLIONS of investment dollars are allowed into this market.  
 
Can you please explain why it has been outlawed by this government, that anybody wanting to grow THEIR OWN marijuana, for personal use, has now been threatened with 1 year imprisonment and/or a $100,000 fine? Does that seem just that a person growing their own product, for their own personal consumption, should be threatened with such heavy handed measures? Why should a person be thrust into "quality control" requirements when it is them who are growing it themselves, for their own personal use.  
 
Growing marijuana is like growing a garden. Not so difficult, farmers do it all the time. There is no need to license only a handful of companies to achieve this. Microbreweries do it all the time.

midge said "you have now graced us with two lengthy posts about the evils of government and right wing corporate conspiracies. Has it ever occurred to you that in the case of cannabis laws the government's desire to have some control over distribution and resale of the product has something to do with quality control? This is a plant with so many miraculous uses and benefits that what is truly criminal is that it has been illegal for as long as it has. When it becomes legal in July should the government simply open up the floodgates and let anyone grow and distribute it as they see fit? Once legal there will be many people trying it for the first time, and many people trying it for a variety of reasons. It's critical, especially in the early going that we have knowledgeable, professional people in well established and organized business growing, distributing and selling the product properly. Once we get past the stigma of cannabis use and it's no big deal (which I believe will happen quite quickly) perhaps the government will open it up for more retailers to be able to sell cannabis in the future. In the meantime this seems like a pretty good start to me. "

Do you want a Black Market for Cannabis in Manitoba?  
 
By all means the Manitoba Government is doing a bang up job! Even going against the Federal Government's decision to trust ALL Canadians with 4 plants for recreational use. Prohibiting legitimate users there ability to grow will not stop any gangs or grey market/black market dealer(s) from stopping there grow operations, people always seem to forget the reason we call people CRIMINALS is because they usually have no regard for the law. So why should the Manitoba Government be allowed to label those who wish to grow 4 plants Criminals when you will be able to cross a provincial boarder and grow 4 plants next door and be a law abiding citizen? Why do people struggle with this? Do you want your TAX dollars paying to keep somebody in jail for 12 months over a FLOWER???  
 
The Public should really be looking into who is personally standing to gain from this. Brain Pallister told all members of the Cabinet to release any information they had in regards to personal investments in Cannabis company's... Did they?? I couldn't find any information so for $5 I paid to have the Freedom of Information Act of Canada email me any Manitoba Officials with public records in any Private or Medical Cannabis company's, apparently I will get an answer back in the next 30 days! Maybe if more people do the same it will set off a chain reaction somewhere at the top and trigger an internal investigation... https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/access-information-privacy/requests-information-act.html

Bassman, I think you need to file a MANITOBA Freedom of Information request. I believe this is different from the Federal request, and seeing that you are focused on wanting information related to Provincial ministers.  
 
http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/fippa/index.html

Kirmit said "Bassman, I think you need to file a MANITOBA Freedom of Information request. I believe this is different from the Federal request, and seeing that you are focused on wanting information related to Provincial ministers.     http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/fippa/index.html "

I filed my first one through the Federal Government because Health Canada was an option, and Health Canada has to approve anybody for "Licensed Producer" status.  
 
However I will also look into the link you provided as well. Thanks!

Where in my post did you read that I agree with the decision to not allow individuals to grow four plants on their own? I was discussing the growing, distribution and sale of the retail market in Manitoba.  
 
Do I want a black market in Manitoba, of course not. Do you think everyone being able to grow 4 plants on their own is going to prevent a black market for cannabis in Manitoba? Not a chance.

midge said "Where in my post did you read that I agree with the decision to not allow individuals to grow four plants on their own? I was discussing the growing, distribution and sale of the retail market in Manitoba.     Do I want a black market in Manitoba, of course not. Do you think everyone being able to grow 4 plants on their own is going to prevent a black market for cannabis in Manitoba? Not a chance. "

I don't know Kirmit or have any personal ties to him/her and I probably did a poor job of articulating what I was trying to get across so I apologize if that came off menacing.  
 
We have a right to hold our Government Local or Federal Accountable for there actions.  
 
I do not believe Kirmit thinks there is any real conspiracy going on here, however I would argue that personal greed could be a VERY REAL FACTOR. Why else would Brian Pallistar ask all other Cabinet members make any personal investments in Cannabis MADE KNOWN. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/premier-pallister-marijuana-conflict-1.4383019  
 
There are Red Flags going off and some of us want answers.  
 
You could be correct that by allowing 4 plants per house hold won't stop the Black Market, but prohibition isn't going to stop those who choose to grow cannabis and disregard the law, criminals or not.  
 
Sounds fine until its a family member that gets to be the example for the $100,000 fine or 12 months Jail time! Nobody deserves this.

I don't smoke pot, and I have never smoked pot. I simply don't care for it and have no interest. But I do find it troubling the manner in which Manitoba has rolled out these policies. They are typical of what I would expect from this government, and troublesome from the perspective that it was unrolled without a level playing field. Government is pandering to a small group of rich individuals by granting them all the rights of profit, while threatening everybody else through the use of excessive policies that make use of threat of prison sentences and massive fines for wanting the same stake in the business model that is legal pot. You can't treat a population with such hostility as a government elected to act on behalf of all it's people. It is not ethical, and something stinks, so you need to call it out. It's the same struggles that populations have had throughout history. The powers that be use their wealth to trample and control everybody else, and now we are seeing it with pot about to become a legal product. Call it a conspiracy theory all you want. My response is that you must then be a coincidence theorist. Everybody knows that when something (often) in government and business stinks, you follow the money. It is the cardinal rule.  
 
Bassman has it completely right. I totally agree with his statement, and it would not surprise me to find that there is some form of corruption in the manner in which these policies have been rolled out.  
 
Edited by Kirmit, 2017-12-07 23:37:49

Bassman said "    midge said "Where in my post did you read that I agree with the decision to not allow individuals to grow four plants on their own? I was discussing the growing, distribution and sale of the retail market in Manitoba.     Do I want a black market in Manitoba, of course not. Do you think everyone being able to grow 4 plants on their own is going to prevent a black market for cannabis in Manitoba? Not a chance. " I don't know Kirmit or have any personal ties to him/her and I probably did a poor job of articulating what I was trying to get across so I apologize if that came off menacing.     We have a right to hold our Government Local or Federal Accountable for there actions.     I do not believe Kirmit thinks there is any real conspiracy going on here, however I would argue that personal greed could be a VERY REAL FACTOR. Why else would Brian Pallistar ask all other Cabinet members make any personal investments in Cannabis MADE KNOWN. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/premier-pallister-marijuana-conflict-1.4383019     There are Red Flags going off and some of us want answers.     You could be correct that by allowing 4 plants per house hold won't stop the Black Market, but prohibition isn't going to stop those who choose to grow cannabis and disregard the law, criminals or not.     Sounds fine until its a family member that gets to be the example for the $100,000 fine or 12 months Jail time! Nobody deserves this. "

I think we are on the same page. I would have preferred the Provincial Government adopt the federal rule and allow up to four plants for personal consumption and I really don't think there would have been any impact on the retail market because of it. I don't think it's a tax grab as much as an attempt to keep it out of the hands of minors. If backyard gardens around the city have a row of cannabis plants between their peas and corn just inside their wooden 2 x 4 fence what do you suppose will happen to it after the sun goes down. So instead you buy hydroponics equipment and grow your plants inside and now your home grown weed costs twice as much as just going and buying some.  
 
As for the conflict of interest issue, it appears to me that Pallister is trying to avoid an ugly situation like we saw with Bill Morneau and the proposed tax law changes earlier this year. Is that a bad thing? Isn't that being transparent which is exactly what Kirmit is vehemently saying all government officials, corporations and, well anyone with any kind of wealth inherently lacks?  
 
If your or Kirmit's search does turn up some red flags on this issue I for one would be interested in knowing so I hope you would share on eBrandon. I would also be 100% in agreement with holding them accountable for the conflict.

Kirmit said "I don't smoke pot, and I have never smoked pot. I simply don't care for it and have no interest. But I do find it troubling the manner in which Manitoba has rolled out these policies. They are typical of what I would expect from this government, and troublesome from the perspective that it was unrolled without a level playing field. Government is pandering to a small group of rich individuals by granting them all the rights of profit, while threatening everybody else through the use of excessive policies that make use of threat of prison sentences and massive fines for wanting the same stake in the business model that is legal pot. You can't treat a population with such hostility as a government elected to act on behalf of all it's people. It is not ethical, and something stinks, so you need to call it out. It's the same struggles that populations have had throughout history. The powers that be use their wealth to trample and control everybody else, and now we are seeing it with pot about to become a legal product. Call it a conspiracy theory all you want. My response is that you must then be a coincidence theorist. Everybody knows that when something (often) in government and business stinks, you follow the money. It is the cardinal rule.     Bassman has it completely right. I totally agree with his statement, and it would not surprise me to find that there is some form of corruption in the manner in which these policies have been rolled out.     Edited by Kirmit, 2017-12-07 23:37:49"

If you have no interest in the legalization of cannabis which the legislation and the original post is about isn't your issue really just about how you feel about society in general? You keep going on about the rich individuals screwing over the poor. The distributors are going to be public companies that have been in existence for many years in the medicinal market. If you have an extra $2.80 you could even buy a share of Delta Nine and be one of those elitist, entitled, wealthy stock holders yourself!  
 
As for the retailers, I know one of the companies that has applied for a licence and I can assure you they are not millionaires but are hard working, honest, professional and would be great at providing the services needed for the retail sales.The employee a number of people and treat them very well. They are as far away from uber wealthy people you describe in your post as you can get.

This is Pallister's grand scheme:  
 
1) Prohibit home grow (appease the bible-thumpers).  
2) Wait it out (no one is going to shutdown Main Street in Winnipeg over this without being labeled a stoner).  
3) July 1st rolls around and $$$$$$$PROFIT$$$$$$$.  
4) Let the outrage grow for the rest of the year, then...  
5) After careful consideration, amend the law to allow home growing.  
6) Coast to another term with everyone too baked to remember what they were riled up about.  
 
The bible-thumpers will thump, but "the people have spoken".  
Grow op seeds/supplies will be abundant and cheap with the initial country-wide demand for stuffs waning.  
 
Deviously clever.  
Surprising as well, considering he got lost in the dark and has the survival instincts of a hamster.

belzebob said "I have the feeling this is going to end up making lots of lawyers rich.     You cannot have a federal law stating the plant is legal, and then have a province ban its cultivation.     I would assume federal law takes precedence, and someone will start a constitutional challenge.     I do not think that the pallister government will want to hassle or the optics of jailing people for a couple of plants in their house.     it is more to do with unlincensed commercial production "

How can the US say that Marijuana is illegal at a federal level yet state side they can legalize it? Isn't that the same sort of situation?

Cory KIBILAE said "This is Pallister's grand scheme:     1) Prohibit home grow (appease the bible-thumpers).   2) Wait it out (no one is going to shutdown Main Street in Winnipeg over this without being labeled a stoner).   3) July 1st rolls around and $$$$$$$PROFIT$$$$$$$.   4) Let the outrage grow for the rest of the year, then...   5) After careful consideration, amend the law to allow home growing.   6) Coast to another term with everyone too baked to remember what they were riled up about.     The bible-thumpers will thump, but "the people have spoken".   Grow op seeds/supplies will be abundant and cheap with the initial country-wide demand for stuffs waning.     Deviously clever.   Surprising as well, considering he got lost in the dark and has the survival instincts of a hamster. "

I think they just didn''t want to have to write up so much regarding growing at home and was easier just to say no plants. How much effort does the government want to put into spelling out the rules of growing at home? Would you have to register yourself as a home grower? How would they know if you have 1,4,6,12,20 plants? Questions were already rising about renters and should they have the ability to grow at home. If the landlord says no growing and someone has a medical card to grow is it discrimination? I think there is a lot of grey areas to address. Plus this is Manitoba population a whole 1.2 million. Really how many people out of all that would actually grow? There is a lot of science and care that goes into growing good quality herb. It isn''t a simple drop in dirt and forget about it plant. People will try and fail and most likely give up. As for all this $$$$$$PROFIT$$$$$ I really cannot see where it will come from. Using Colorado and them bringing in 200 million in 2016 with a state population of over 5 million or 5 times the size of Manitoba, estimates using those numbers would put Manitoba at tax profit of 40 million for the year, and with profit splitting with the feds at 50% (I think that was the split) it puts our income at 20 million. Honestly I cannot see revenues that high (no pun intended) for the first year of sales. Marijuana is no Holly Grail for provincial income.  
 
Edited by Fishin Guy, 2017-12-11 09:41:26