Cannabis to be legal in Canada by July 2018
April 13, 2017 4:24 PM   Subscribe

Proposed cannabis legislation from the Canadian Liberal government has provinces bracing for impact. Following recommendations from the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, Health Minister Philpot says that protecting the health of Canadians is the top priority, but the proposed legislation still has Canadian physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists concerned about the link between cannabis usage and mental illness.

The legislation proposes that Canadians would be permitted to be in possession of up to 30g of dried or fresh marijuana, purchase cannabis products from licensed vendors, or grow up to four plants at home. Products will not be permitted to have flashy packaging, advertising to minors will be prohibited, and those caught selling to minors will face 14 years in prison. Legislation that increases penalties for impaired driving was also introduced in the House today.

The change in law will also put Canada in violation of several international treaties.

Meanwhile, businesses already preparing for legalization of cannabis experience a rough ride after rules for selling cannabis products remains unclear, and may remain so until Canadian provinces decide where cannabis products will be sold, what the legal age will be for consumption, and how to tax cannabis appropriately.
posted by Amity (52 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite
 
It sounds like a lot of hurdles but certainly a step in the right direction. I'm glad to see this move getting more and more normalized. Let's see what Sessions does in the next two years.

I live in Denver and haven't seen a rise in any crime.
posted by tunewell at 4:30 PM on April 13, 2017 [3 favorites]


Lord, the CBC news anchors have just been tripping over themselves to insert terrible pot-related puns when delivering this news.

I'm down, despite not being a pot smoker (though this might make me indulge once a year or something), but putting the fine details on the provinces will be a PITA.
posted by Kitteh at 4:32 PM on April 13, 2017 [2 favorites]


There are now two very strong reasons to move to Canada.
posted by Splunge at 4:41 PM on April 13, 2017 [5 favorites]


I am also quite concerned about who will profit from this industry. We shouldn't accidentally build big tobacco 2.0.
posted by constantinescharity at 4:49 PM on April 13, 2017 [4 favorites]


Relevant from Canadaland: Giant Novelty Spliff

I am surprised at the quantity they're legalizing - personal growing of four plants! That means my old Uni student house could have legally grown 32 plants.

Nevertheless, my guess is people are going to get bored of weed, and this is not going to be a big deal (unless the Americans backtrack big time).
posted by anthill at 4:51 PM on April 13, 2017 [1 favorite]


Lord, the CBC news anchors have just been tripping over themselves to insert terrible pot-related puns when delivering this news.

Because imprisoning harmless people is hilarious.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:53 PM on April 13, 2017 [5 favorites]


Part of the problem here is that they put an ex-cop (Bill Blair) in charge of the legalization file. Someone whose career up until being elected to federal office was being part of the war on (some) drugs in order to justify insane police budgets is not to be trusted to make outstanding decisions.

And also, if provincial regulatory regimes end up being different, that could be a problem - but not nearly the problem it is in the US where you've got legal states next door to non-legal states, while it's still illegal at the federal level.

So the good news is that the proposed legislation - which says possession of 30 grams or growing up to four plants will be legal - is at least a coherent national legalization policy.

But they've kicked the can down the road to provinces to figure out what retail sales look like.

But really - Bill Blair and Trudeau need to realize that the legal availability of pharmaceutical-grade heroin might actually kill the fentanyl supply chain dead. Cops are not public health experts and should not be trusted with this file.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:54 PM on April 13, 2017 [3 favorites]


Scowly Liberals legalize the demon weed, by the indispensable Paul Wells:
I believe the only reason the Liberals have tabled this bill is that they promised to, and that they are getting a little heavily-subscribed on broken campaign promises in other domains... this is the first time I’ve ever seen a government deliver on a campaign promise while flip-flopping on the policy question at hand.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:02 PM on April 13, 2017 [1 favorite]


"The change in law will also put Canada in violation of several international treaties."

Right, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is a worldwide treaty binding almost every nation on the planet and includes numerous obstacles for legalization of marijuana, not just moving it from Schedule I to II.

I'm very interested in seeing how Canada intends to deal with this, as this is an issue that is almost never discussed with regard to legalization initiatives. I was disappointed a couple of weeks ago when John Oliver's show featured the problems associated with the conflicts between US federal and state law -- but never mentioned that the US government can't merely just follow the states' lead in legalization or even blatant non-enforcement. This is a serious obstacle for legalization within the international regime. The US, particularly, is in a bind with this as it was the US which was the primary agent in negotiating so highly restricting marijuana in the treaty. Maybe Canada can flout this (I'm skeptical), but that's not really an option for the US.

Bottom line, if people are serious about legalization, they need to begin to focus efforts on renegotiating these international treaties, because right now they're very binding and restrictive.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:05 PM on April 13, 2017 [8 favorites]


Just a reminder for immigrants to the US that you can be deported from the US based on testing positive for Marijuana - no matter where you smoked it including Canada - if the US federal government learns of it.
posted by srboisvert at 5:06 PM on April 13, 2017 [3 favorites]


Oh thank god, we've brought this discussion round to the US again. Whew.
posted by Kitteh at 5:17 PM on April 13, 2017 [40 favorites]


but the proposed legislation still has Canadian physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists concerned about the link between cannabis usage and mental illness.

while I'm still concerned about the link between Canadian physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists and mental illness.

but seriously -- I don't refute that THC can trigger some unpleasant mental/emotional stuff, but enough already with the kind of caution that manifests in the greater evil of prohibition. Oh Canada indeed.
posted by philip-random at 5:24 PM on April 13, 2017 [9 favorites]


Right, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is a worldwide treaty binding almost every nation on the planet and includes numerous obstacles for legalization of marijuana, not just moving it from Schedule I to II.

Interestingly, according to this Vox piece on the topic, Uruguay already legalized cannabis, declared with a straight face that this didn't violate the treaties it pretty blatantly violated, and just sort of dared anybody to do anything about it (nobody has).
posted by Tomorrowful at 5:40 PM on April 13, 2017 [17 favorites]


Ivan Fyodorovich: " The US, particularly, is in a bind with this as it was the US which was the primary agent in negotiating so highly restricting marijuana in the treaty. Maybe Canada can flout this (I'm skeptical), but that's not really an option for the US."

Yeah, maybe. But, the Vox article also says that the US has been the primary enforcer of those treaties. If the US just said "fuck it", then who knows what might happen next. Would some other country step into the breach? Would that even be effective? Who knows? The Uruguay example indicates that these treaties can only be as strong as the enforcement mechanisms.
posted by mhum at 6:00 PM on April 13, 2017 [3 favorites]


Nevertheless, my guess is people are going to get bored of weed, and this is not going to be a big deal (unless the Americans backtrack big time).

From living in a state that has legalized recreational weed, it doesn't seem to be losing any popularity with time. The weed stores seem to be always busy, and tax revenues are up, but otherwise it's hard to see any noticeable impact. It just feels normal, such that traveling to a neighboring no-legalization state feels a bit like revisiting the Prohibition era.

When I was last in Vancouver, I noticed a lot of dispensaries; I assume they were all medical but didn't investigate. They certainly didn't seem to feel a need to hide.

The international treaty thing is interesting and given the continual incremental moves towards legalization, a work-around will eventually need to be found.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:08 PM on April 13, 2017 [4 favorites]


just sort of dared anybody to do anything about it (nobody has).

Obviously, which is why international law is a farce. Unless it's Bush or Trump violating it, in which case it's super serious.
posted by jpe at 6:43 PM on April 13, 2017 [1 favorite]


But they've kicked the can down the road to provinces to figure out what retail sales look like.

It's a can they were pretty much constitutionally obligated to kick. Division of powers places retail sales of goods squarely in 92(13) Property and Civil Rights.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:56 PM on April 13, 2017 [8 favorites]


Christ I hope they don't fuck this up the way they fucked up the assisted dying legislation.
posted by Sternmeyer at 7:15 PM on April 13, 2017 [1 favorite]


When I was last in Vancouver, I noticed a lot of dispensaries; I assume they were all medical but didn't investigate. They certainly didn't seem to feel a need to hide.

The dispensaries have gotten a bit cheeky, pretty much dropping the pretense of being 'medical'. In Toronto they've popped up all over the place; billboards along the highway advertise delivery services. The police for a while seemed to turn a blind eye but they've recently started shutting them down, only to have them open up again a few days later.
posted by Flashman at 7:21 PM on April 13, 2017 [1 favorite]


Dispensaries are illegal - perhaps considered "grey market." Tolerated by cities for their revenue.

The source of Cannabis (in its many forms) sold in those dispensaries are definitely illegal black market material.

The only source of legal Cannabis is from Health Canada licensed LPs who can only dispense to Canadians who have a medical recommendation from a specific bracket (MDs, iirc, NPs). The transfer of medical Cannabis is only through mail order.
posted by porpoise at 7:46 PM on April 13, 2017 [1 favorite]


Full disclosure: I am a principle in a late stage application to be a LP within the (formerly MMPR at the time our submission went in) ACMPR (Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations).

In regards to an upthread question about who profits... my highly biased response would be 'those who don't and won't cut corners and will run business to maximize product quality* and long term viability.'

There's a ton of badly run businesses, most propped up by speculative investment to keep the lights on until "rec"(reational is legal). But there's going to be (less strongly, should be) a pretty big die-off unless Health Canada backs down on testing.

But there is some consolidation going on and there are well run LPs - one is backed by a group from The Netherlands who are doing it right and are on track to be a leader.

The industry isn't actually very profitable right now under the strictly medical system. Everyone's hoping a break like this will favour the extant LPs - I have the draft but haven't had the chance to pore over it in detail yet to see what, if any, fallout there might be.

Right now there are about 30 extant LPs who got their licenses at different points between the end of the MMAR (the very problematic precursor to the MMPR**) and now. Even within each phase, regulations were changed on the fly. A good portion of current LPs would never have left early stages of the application process if they started now instead of when they did years ago.

2018 for full legal is more optimistic than I would be if my reputation would be on the line if that couldn't be met. I anticipate mistakes being made in the legislation and allowed to stay in because of a promise.


*not merely potency, but consistency between batches of each variety and trust in the integrity of our purity testing and the integrity of our (mandated) third party partners for analytical microbiology and analytical chemistry (potency, microbial toxins, pesticides, heavy metals, etc.). The mandated tests are ok, I'd argue that there should be more tests, especially when addition treatments such as gamma-irradiation are used (gamma is fine, great, no health risks - but its used as a mitigation for batches that fail micro; sure, there are no viable microbes left after the treatment but all those microbial endo- and exo- toxins [like LPS or peptidoglycan) are still there.

**most of the black market material sold at grey market dispensaries are likely from criminal enterprise using the MMAR as a cover and who have apparently evolved some to now supply the grey market dispensary market
posted by porpoise at 8:14 PM on April 13, 2017 [8 favorites]


Buried in the legislation is also a provision that changes the standard for administering sobriety tests to drivers. Where before officers needed to have a reasonable suspicion (probable cause) that the driver was over the legal limit to conduct a sobriety test, they will now be able to administer tests "randomly". It's stuff like that that gives this the, how do you say...the je-ne-sais-quoi of being crafted by a former police chief notorious for twerking civil liberties.
posted by dry white toast at 8:15 PM on April 13, 2017 [9 favorites]


Saliva tests are so much bullshit - not seen since the likes of those "bomb detector wand" sold to Iraq.

Ok, maybe not quite. But the science doesn't support the efficacy of 1) the instruments and 2) the utility of the tests.

Tolerance makes a huge difference. So it kind of becomes a ethical question of whether one should not drive while under the influence or that one should not drive while having irrelevant physiological contamination of certain small molecules. Being somewhat sarcastic.

Also, any oral swabs for either chemical reaction detection or antibody-mediated detection can be defeated trivially.
posted by porpoise at 8:22 PM on April 13, 2017 [3 favorites]


The only source of legal Cannabis is from Health Canada licensed LPs who can only dispense to Canadians who have a medical recommendation from a specific bracket (MDs, iirc, NPs).

A few months ago I was having some considerable muscle and joint pain of mysterious provenance. I talked to my generally agreeable and easygoing GP about trying medical marijuana after several other treatments had made no dent in it. He said, "Well, I don't prescribe it myself, but I can refer you to someone who will. Of course, there are cheaper ways to get it, ahem."
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:55 PM on April 13, 2017 [3 favorites]


It's always nice to be a trend setter in something that is so obviously right. Like Canada's nearly unprecedented at the time move to legalize same sex marriage.

Ivan Fyodorovich: "Right, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is a worldwide treaty binding almost every nation on the planet and includes numerous obstacles for legalization of marijuana, not just moving it from Schedule I to II.

I'm very interested in seeing how Canada intends to deal with this, as this is an issue that is almost never discussed with regard to legalization initiatives.
"

Pretty sure Canada is going to take the middle finger, we know we are right and are going to act accordingly, route and either ignore or withdraw completely. Which should cause some interesting friction down south if they actually notice.
posted by Mitheral at 11:17 PM on April 13, 2017 [6 favorites]


The "link" between cannabis and mental illness is no more mysterious or ominous than the link between headaches and taking aspirin, except overdosing on cannabis won't cause liver failure. Same on the link between alcoholism and mental illness, except that link actually should worry people because alcohol is a behavioral disinhibitor that makes people behave more impulsively, while cannabis is more of an inhibitor that promotes risk avoidance and generally makes impulsive behavior less likely. That's probably why the military's studies on treating combat vets with PTSD with cannabis have shown such dramatic reductions in suicide and domestic abuse rates, while there's so much evidence alcohol exacerbates self destructive behavior and can contribute to impulsive violence and suicide.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:29 AM on April 14, 2017 [6 favorites]


Christ I hope they don't fuck this up the way they fucked up the assisted dying legislation.


"Wait...what's this provision in the bill that says Bill Blair is allowed to put random Torontonians into dog cages when he feels like it?"
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 5:27 AM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


Oh thank god, we've brought this discussion round to the US again. Whew.

That was meant as a warning for Canadians who might immigrate and Canadians who have already immigrated to the United States. The number that already immigrated is just a measly million or so people (equal to almost 3% Canada's current population) and the number who emigrate each year is just a mere eighty thousand people.

If memory serves correctly though this would not be a problem for you. Just other people.
posted by srboisvert at 5:35 AM on April 14, 2017 [1 favorite]


Nevertheless, my guess is people are going to get bored of weed

actual LOL

because people never keep using a product that makes them feel good, right? goodness, liquor companies must be suffering terribly, their products have been legally available for so long that everyone's just sick of it all and no one ever drinks...
posted by palomar at 6:16 AM on April 14, 2017 [4 favorites]


It's well established that marijuana can cause paranoia and irrational, erratic behavior in people who don't use it.
posted by littlejohnnyjewel at 8:11 AM on April 14, 2017 [17 favorites]


Where before officers needed to have a reasonable suspicion (probable cause) that the driver was over the legal limit to conduct a sobriety test, they will now be able to administer tests "randomly". It's stuff like that that gives this the, how do you say...the je-ne-sais-quoi of being crafted by a former police chief notorious for twerking civil liberties.

Wait, you don't have random breath testing? Been a part of Australian law since the 80s, no effect on civil liberties.
posted by wilful at 8:14 AM on April 14, 2017


on the driving tip --

I can point to numerous individuals (possibly even myself) who have in their time driven many thousands of miles and hours while at least slightly under the influence of THC ... with ZERO negative incidents attributable to being "high". One might even find argument that they become less dangerous while under THC's influence, because the tendency is to relax a touch, not go as quickly or aggressively.

Seriously. A responsibly stoned driver is NOT a lethal threat. And further, to equate driving a little high with driving a little inebriated (on alcohol) is itself reckless and dangerous. I know that even one drink makes me a more aggressive driver, not sloppy, but immediately more likely to be pushing the speed limit (without really realizing it).

Furthermore (and this is a BIG furthermore) ...

As soon as a little alcohol is consumed in conjunction with a little weed, then we do have a problem. It can be a wonderful mix if you're hanging with friends, eating food, doing whatever -- just NOT operating a few tons of metal, plastic etc. Law Enforcement and Science -- if you really want to do society a favor, find that roadside test that measures relative amounts of alcohol and THC (hint: if it's actual accuracy you're after, it's probably not going to be a simple saliva and/or breath thing -- it's probably going to end up being officer's judgment, stand on one foot and recite the alphabet ... or whatever).
posted by philip-random at 8:24 AM on April 14, 2017 [4 favorites]


Been a part of Australian law since the 80s, no effect on civil liberties.

I think we most be working from different very different definitions of civil liberties.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:33 AM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


My only concern is that I, and my soon-to-be child, will be forced to inhale when I have no desire to do so (even more often than already). Are there going to be people standing in front of every restaurant smoking pot? As though the tobacco stink clouds aren't bad enough? Is this going to make my condo hallways smell even worse on Friday and Saturday nights? In addition to regulating sales, provinces need to restrict the smoking primarily to private residences with those indulging responsible for keeping their smoke out of other people's/public space.

Eat your edibles wherever you want. That doesn't impinge on anyone else.

Phillip, the problem with driving after drinking isn't primarily aggression or inclusiveness, it's impaired reaction times. I have no idea what the research is on pot and reaction times.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:07 AM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


Oh yeah, the other big downside I foresee is that more people on public transit will stink. I was just reading an article arguing that legal pot needs to come with transit funding to keep impaired people from driving, and while I don't want impaired people driving, I confess that I find the smell of a tobacco smoker next to me to be noxious enough. A whole new source of stink isn't something I look forward to. And that's obviously something that can't be and shouldn't be regulated, so it will just be something to put up with.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:13 AM on April 14, 2017 [1 favorite]


Buried in the legislation is also a provision that changes the standard for administering sobriety tests to drivers. Where before officers needed to have a reasonable suspicion (probable cause) that the driver was over the legal limit to conduct a sobriety test, they will now be able to administer tests "randomly". It's stuff like that that gives this the, how do you say...the je-ne-sais-quoi of being crafted by a former police chief notorious for twerking civil liberties.

As of now I never felt police officers needed much to administer a breathalyzer test, I'm not sure this effectively changes anything. And I don't feel opposition to this or fancier rules about what is "under influence" for cannabis will get any traction in the general population. People don't seem to mind the change, but the big fears are access for minors and DUI so it's not surprising the government is toughening up there. (of course everybody seem to forget access is ridiculously easy in high schools and some people are already driving high)

IMHO, if you consumed you shouldn't drive, in the absence of further studies and better technological solutions the current measures don't seem too bad and driving your car or getting high isn't a fundamental human right.

It's a can they were pretty much constitutionally obligated to kick. Division of powers places retail sales of goods squarely in 92(13) Property and Civil Rights.

It's very true, but it feels like they didn't even try to get the provinces to start preparing and act in a coherent way, this very much feel like kicking the can and not caring about where it ends up. This whole thing seems a bit amateurish. It's hard to know who's really to blame for this whole sad state of affair. Provinces refusing to be diligent and start preparing? Or federal government just doing it's usual thing and not collaborating or just taking responsibility for what it starts.

The SAQ fidelity card is already called "Inspire", I hope they get to distribute in Quebec just for the prescient name on the card ; )
posted by coust at 9:51 AM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


As soon as a little alcohol is consumed in conjunction with a little weed, then we do have a problem. It can be a wonderful mix if you're hanging with friends, eating food, doing whatever -- just NOT operating a few tons of metal, plastic etc.

Agree absolutely. Mixing is not advisable anyway because weed can inhibit nausea and increase your perceptual tolerance for alcohol, so you can accidentally end up drinking way more than you should--even to the extent of alcohol poisoning--without realizing how much you've been drinking.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:37 AM on April 14, 2017


and driving your car or getting high isn't a fundamental human right.

in spite of what I said earlier, I do agree with this.

my concern comes with how "being high" is determined. It's one thing to have some THC in your bloodstream, another to be affected by it. A pile of science has gone into figuring out what constitutes alcohol impairment, but not, I suspect, THC.

I mean, I had a few tokes last night. Would that still be registering in my roadside test today?
posted by philip-random at 12:36 PM on April 14, 2017 [5 favorites]


Also we need to be asking more serious questions about who's going to profit from these changes:

Questions raised over marijuana task force chair's ties to industry

posted by sneebler at 12:53 PM on April 14, 2017 [4 favorites]


I realize that this would hold not a drop of water legally, but I feel like the iffiness of the tests could work out well. I mean a reliable test would actually be better, of course, but given that the test is unreliable, hopefully most people would worry that the test is unreliable err on the side of caution, consume less, wait longer and wait a little longer after that. That could only be a good thing for the safety of the roads. But yeah, that's not likely to fly as a legal argument.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 1:28 PM on April 14, 2017


my concern comes with how "being high" is determined. It's one thing to have some THC in your bloodstream, another to be affected by it. A pile of science has gone into figuring out what constitutes alcohol impairment, but not, I suspect, THC.

I mean, I had a few tokes last night. Would that still be registering in my roadside test today?


That's a very interesting question, I sure hope not since by now the incapacitating effects would have dissipated. But like you say, the science on this is still hazy, hopefully now that it's legal and a soon to be real public health issue, we'll should be able to fund/conduct better research on this.

I feel it's better to start with a slightly more restrictive approach and adjust it to reality, but that'll imply being extra careful for everybody who consumes and operates a vehicle to stay below the limit.

And your question made me read more on this... it would appear that it's not all that clear that there's an actual relationship with the blood THC level and impairment at low values, and for frequent consumers it might even take a few days to drop below 2ng/ml... in fact the more I read about it the more it feels like there's a value because we expect the law to specify a level (like for alcohol), not because it's a good indicator.

So in retrospect that random check thing... I can really see it being used abusively on some minorities (we know white dude driving a BMW is probably not going to be randomly tested), and that could actually perpetuates some of the adverse effects of the current laws.
posted by coust at 1:37 PM on April 14, 2017 [4 favorites]


Mixing is not advisable anyway because weed can inhibit nausea and increase your perceptual tolerance for alcohol, so

Variable mileage. If I drink enough to catch a good buzz and then someone passes me the pipe, I will vomit like a [redacted expletive]. Neither has that effect on me alone—or even in the reverse order. It's a special recipe I have avoided since the L platform at Logan Square that one Saturday night in October of '97. I remember it well. I'm sure the conductor of the oncoming train does too. Ew, that was really gross.
posted by heyho at 1:42 PM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


If only I had a penguin...: "Are there going to be people standing in front of every restaurant smoking pot?"

At least in CO, WA, and OR, it's not allowed to be using marijuana out in public. It's considered a violation roughly in the same realm as public drinking (i.e.: a fine and/or a citation but not a major criminal offense). If Canada follows the same path, I'm guessing that you probably won't have crowds of people huddled outside of restaurants and bars smoking joints but, like public drinking, you're still gonna have instances here and there of people violating the rule.
posted by mhum at 2:30 PM on April 14, 2017 [4 favorites]


It was fully legal here in the U.S. at the time of the revolution, and half the revolutionary leaders grew the stuff for other purposes, since it was one of the most common industrial products going and used to make everything from pants, to ropes, to the paper the U.S. constitution was drafted on. And we really only started seeing America go off the rails with paranoia after about the 1930s or so when marijuana prohibition first got seriously underway here, so I predict you'll be less paranoid and less likely to disrupt other democratic countries' internal affairs. Ironically, America's only been getting more paranoid since we got off the weed.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:01 PM on April 14, 2017


(NOTE: I think that thing about the constitution itself being printed on hemp is a myth, but any drafts were probably made using hemp paper, because that was what cheap paper would probably have been made of then, but I am taking poetic license above...)
posted by saulgoodman at 5:08 PM on April 14, 2017


My only concern is that I, and my soon-to-be child, will be forced to inhale when I have no desire to do so (even more often than already). Are there going to be people standing in front of every restaurant smoking pot? As though the tobacco stink clouds aren't bad enough? Is this going to make my condo hallways smell even worse on Friday and Saturday nights? In addition to regulating sales, provinces need to restrict the smoking primarily to private residences with those indulging responsible for keeping their smoke out of other people's/public space.

At least in the US states with legal weed where I have lived, it is mostly regulated like a cross between alcohol and tobacco. So like alcohol, public use is limited, and like tobacco, you can't go smoking up in bars or restaurants.

But I'd also say that based on what I have seen here, yes, with legalization you are going to be smelling a lot more weed in apartment/condo hallways and in some outdoor spaces. I don't like the smell, so I find it slightly irritating; someone who was allergic or particularly sensitive might find it difficult.

I've heard that there has been an uptick in nuisance complaints to the zoning department from people complaining about the smell from neighbors growing weed (for personal consumption, not for sale, which is regulated much more strictly). How that is handled and enforced would be a totally local issue, ignored in some places and cracked down on in others.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:21 PM on April 14, 2017


In BC even though it's illegal it's everywhere. You don't quite see people walking down the street toking up (though I imagine it happens) but walk around any moderately dense housing district on a warm summers eve and you'll be able to smell it a lot. You also smell it in busy outdoor spaces like parks and hiking trails.
posted by Mitheral at 7:42 PM on April 14, 2017


I place my own comfort above all others which is why I never leave my house. My other option was to change the world to meet my own standards of comfort but that didn't seem fair to everyone else.

I don't know why I mentioned it here, just came into my mind for no reason in particular I guess.. maybe I'm getting a contact high from this thread.
posted by some loser at 7:58 PM on April 14, 2017


Probably won't have crowds of people huddled outside of restaurants and bars smoking joints

Lol, people tend to be a little further from the entrance on the sidewalk but public toking in Toronto has been the norm for so long now that my daughter grew up talking about the "Toronto Smell" and mentioning it when she would smell it elsewhere ("isn't it weird that our neighbourhood sometimes has the Toronto Smell?"). She was thirteen and walking behind the TVO building when we saw a couple of city sanitation workers taking a break in the cab of their vehicle - she mentioned "oh! It's that Toronto smell again!", that's when the penny finally dropped for her.
posted by saucysault at 8:08 PM on April 14, 2017 [3 favorites]


At least in CO, WA, and OR, it's not allowed to be using marijuana out in public. It's considered a violation roughly in the same realm as public drinking (i.e.: a fine and/or a citation but not a major criminal offense). If Canada follows the same path, I'm guessing that you probably won't have crowds of people huddled outside of restaurants and bars smoking joints but, like public drinking, you're still gonna have instances here and there of people violating the rule.

Well it's not legal yet and there are definitely already more people smoking pot in public, walking down the sidewalk, coming out of concerts and sports events, etc. etc. than there are people violating open container laws. I go to Blue Jays games pretty regularly and plan my route out of and away from Skydome to minimize my outside time anywhere near the dome, just so I don't have to smell it. I guess it's possible there's more public drinking but it's just easier to hide since it stinks less, but my sense is is that since there are indoor public places you can drink, people drink there. There aren't indoor public places to smoke (and lots of people who smoke don't smoke inside their homes anymore, and most people who don't smoke don't allow smoking in their homes), so people who smoke (anything at all) quite commonly do so outside, in public.

On another note, I'm actually surprised to see that supposedly people are being jailed for possession, etc. in Canada. When I've complained to the condo management about hallway stink (which is absolutely their responsibility to address), the first time they told me to call the police. Obviously I'm not going to call the police because I don't think "you're stinking up the hallway" is a police matter and I figured there was always the tiny chance that the cops would somehow ruin someone's life when they're not going anything wrong. But also I kind of assumed that if I called the police they would just laugh at me. I can't imagine calling the police to complain that my neighbours are smoking pot. Do they actually care about that?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:41 PM on April 14, 2017 [1 favorite]


Electronic vapourization of either dried flowers or concentrates is an increasingly popular form of consumption although there is a price barrier to entry (good units for concentrates can be found for ~$60, but good units for dried flowers start ~$200).

The odour from vapourized dried flower is very much different than combusted/smoked Cannabis - its very mild and smells kind of like roasted tea. Dissipates very quickly.

Likewise, vapourized concentrates are also much milder in smell and doesn't have the stereotyped burning Cannabis smell. Most concentrates smell kind of like fresh Cannabis plant but dissipates very quickly.

Both forms of ingestion avoids the pyrolysis of plant material - which vastly reduces concerns of carcinogenicity. Shatter is produced from supercritical CO2 organic extraction, BHO is mandated to be tested for residual solvents (butane), and rosin is produced mechanically (pressure and some heat). There are some other organic extraction techniques in use (like limonene) and although the regs stipulate residual solvent testing, the particular solvent used might not be on the list of residual solvents to be tested for.

Still haven't gotten around to reading the new proposed regs, but under the former regs, concentrates are limited to 3% THC whereas conventional concentrates (shatter, butane hash oil, rosin) have THC concentrations between 25-70%+ THC. There's a 'new thing' called distillate that claims THC levels approaching 95%+ (short path distillation).

So, legal concentrates might be a non-starter.

For reference, highest quality/potency dried flower typically weighs in from 7-15%+.

Edibles/oral ingestion is highly problematic from multiple perspectives.
posted by porpoise at 11:05 AM on April 15, 2017


Porpoise, most strains here in OR have between 15-25% thc. Before they changed the rules around testing, there were some strains claiming 30%.
posted by thebotanyofsouls at 2:15 PM on April 15, 2017


« Older “—and so biomedical companies are bleeding 500,000...   |   "My childhood is ruined!" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments