Deutsche Welle reports:
Canada is poised to become the first country in North America to legalize marijuana and other cannabis products for recreational purposes, a decision that has the support of a majority of Canadians.
But experts say federal legislation, expected to be introduced later this week, is only the first step, and the implementation of a countrywide, legalized cannabis system will likely differ from coast to coast.
“That framework legislation will empower the relevant ministers to pass regulation, and the regulation is really where the action happens,” said Hugo Alves, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in the medical marijuana industry.
It’s not yet clear where recreational cannabis products will be sold in Canada once it is legalized, what entities will be allowed to produce it, if a limit will be imposed on how much someone can purchase at one time, or what tax the government will charge.
…
Legalizing recreational marijuana was one of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s election campaign promises in 2015. A year later, the federal government established a task force to make recommendations on how to create the new system.
That committee looked at how other places have legalized recreational marijuana use – including Colorado, Washington state, and Uruguay – and at how Canada has regulated tobacco, alcohol, and medicinal cannabis in the past.
The task force recommended that Ottawa regulate the production of cannabis across the country, set a minimum age for purchase at 18, and impose restrictions on advertising similar to those that exist for cigarettes.
Provincial and municipal governments should, meanwhile, be able to choose to set a higher minimum age, and regulate distribution and retail sales in their own jurisdictions, the committee recommended.
Commenting on the Canadian plans, Nick Clegg said:
While the UK remains firmly stuck with an outdated approach to cannabis, other countries are moving forward to a more effective approach. Trudeau’s sensible and moderate government in Canada understands that a regulated market will drive out criminality and prevent young people from having easy access to cannabis.
The UK government should take a leaf out of Canada’s book and get a grip on the cannabis market here – bringing about control of the drug through regulation.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Andrew Tampion
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
17 Comments
Much as Britain is grateful for the LibDem’s adopting evidence-based policy on cannabis, it is very depressing how much of the language used by your people is so wildly inaccurate.
It’s not ‘marijuana’, it’s cannabis.
The ‘M’ word was originally promoted in 1930s America in order to demonise cannabis as part of a racist campaign associating it with Hispanics. Prior to this in the USA, cannabis would have been called reefer or hemp.
‘Marijuana’ is a deeply racist term, highly offensive, discriminatory and misleading. The Liberal Democrats should swiftly disassociate the party from any further use of this word.
I agree with Nick that “the UK government should take a leaf out of of Canada’s book”. I presume that Nick means a “cannabis leaf”.
It is also interesting to see that around 20 ex Liberal politicians are the the head of or high up in legal cannabis business’ in Canada. Including the former BC Premier and the head of their drug squad.
I think the Conservatives are already looking at that and seeing a nice retirement from politics.
In the meantime while politicians decide how they are going to cash in on the policy change patients and adult cannabis consumers are left in a grey area with poor access of they are not connected to a cannabis community. This let’s the street dealers run the market and they have little care for standards or agree regulation or strain type. Cannabis Social Clubs have been formed to fill this void and offer a safer alternative.
I think the key with all of this is exactly what the detail is in the regulation. Some people’s idea of legalisation is for people who already use it to get a quality controlled supply issued by a pharmacy whilst they receive treatment for their use. Others argue for a more free for all approach of being able to buy as much as you want from the local 8 till late corner express. Either way a large percentage of people are likely to be disappointed thinking that the government has done too little or not enough, just as will be the case with Brexit…. Doh!.
In either case the criminal element is unlikely to be completely eliminated, take the example of black market alcohol and tobacco despite reasonably cheap freely available legal supplies.
Also if you restrict to over 18 yes you leave the youngest and potentially most vulnerable part of the customer group still at risk from the criminal elements of the business.
Above should read – thinking the government has done too little or too much…Etc.
George Washington was an advocate of hemp, allegedly.
The thing about the war on drugs was that it was driven by paranoia about subversive influences peaking in the 60s and 70s. Now it’s mostly about recreational usage rather than part of a counter cultural expression of political/social radicalism.
From the Lancet Psychiatry September 2016
“Cannabis is a public health issue that is not going away. In the USA, cannabis use has doubled in the past ten years,1 with approximately 22 million American users in 2014. The risks of both short-term and long-term cannabis use have been well described. Short-term use can result in impaired memory, motor coordination, and decision making. Long-term use can affect brain development, functional outcomes, and mental health. In the face of these risks, as states and countries consider enactment of laws relating to medical and recreational cannabis use, clear and evidence-based cannabis policies are needed.”
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(16)30137-7/abstract
From the Lancet Psychiatry, August 2016:
“There is no cure for schizophrenia. Accordingly, clinicians must do their best at managing the various symptoms that emerge during the course of the disease. Therefore, identification of putative risk factors that trigger relapse and contribute to poor prognosis is crucial. Because cannabis might contribute to the development of schizophrenia, the continued effect of the drug on the course of the disease is of great clinical interest and a focus on how to improve outcomes in this disorder is essential.”
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(16)30230-9/abstract
Why would we want to legalise cannabis and, potentially, create more problems for young people? This is irresponsible. We are doing everything we can to stop people from smoking – no smoking in public places, plain packaging enforced by law – and yet we want to legalise another substance that is smoked, that is potentially more addictive than nicotine and with far worse mental health effects for some, including the onset of first-time psychosis. ”
Please let’s get more conclusive evidence before going down the tobacco route with cannabis.
Judy I agree with you, some people tut at the slippery slope arguement but if cannabis why not ecstacy or speed, if those why not heroin or crack. There is a reason for those who care to know, decriminalisation for possession is one thing and we pretty much have it, legalisation is a potential world of hurt.
New products to the market have to pass exacting safety requirements, I see no reason why cannabis should be any different. It is inconceivable that inhalation of any partially oxidised products of any substance would pass health protection tests. Those selling it would also have to be liable to consumer protection laws. This can include compensation for harmful side effects. I would have thought that it would be rather foolish for anyone or any company to become a legal supplier.
On the other hand, I can see no problem with medically prescribed derivatives of cannabis.
Thanks Tynan. Yes Martin, I think cannabis, or drugs derived from cannabis, for medical purposes, are a very different matter.
I think it’s notable that Canada already has medicinal cannabis, so there is a better understanding in the medical and wider community of the pros and cons of regulated supplies of the drug. I am very much of the view that this should be the first step.
I’m pleased to see Canada giving proper consideration to how supply chains would work, as that is so important. The variation in type and quality of cannabis products available on the black market is huge, and some of the modern strains have far more of the psychosis inducing chemicals than what was more typical even 10-20 years ago, never mind the sixties.
Over the last few days, the now illegal drug known as Spice has been in the news. Paramedics are clear that it’s not a single drug, with the chemical make-up changing on a weekly basis and giving very different medical effects. It is sometimes known as synthetic cannabis, but campaigners are keen to make sure people know that it’s far, far more dangerous. The problem is that people take what they can get, and a lot of the recent problems are amongst the homeless community who are very vulnerable.
Since legalising cannabis is Lib Dem policy now, we should be grateful that the Canadians are doing a trial run for us. If we are ever in a position to enact this policy, I’m sure we will learn a lot from their experience.
Personally, I’m in favour.
@Nick Baird
I’m more sceptical. However, I agree. It should be helpful to see what happens in Canada.
I hope, if it’s not successful, we are willing to consider changing our minds – as I hope I will be willing to change my mind if it is.
Canada isn’t the first place to legalise cannabis, and other places claim success, but IMO it would be the country/state most similar to the UK, so I think the lessons learned to be learned would be more relevant.
In particular, we need to remember that legalisation isn’t a free for all, any more than prohibition needs to involve locking up everyone for lengthy sentences. IMO, there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate the UK should be moving away from prohibition, but it is a lot more difficult to get people to agree just how far that move should be. Examples from other countries should be studied with interest.
Nick Baird:
I am curious how production and sale of cannabis can be made legal. If people grow their own plants, I could see this as little different to growing any plant, but legal sale for consumption caries many obligations that I cannot see how any seller could fulfil. The sale of many substances is banned for consumption because of their potentially carcinogenic properties. The nature of any smoke is that it contains many carcinogens. I imagine cannabis cakes would be less of a problem.
If the drug is legalised then I would expect the same controls over quality and same publication of information about dangers that is done for alcohol.
@ Judy Abel,
You may be interested in the position of the Canadian Psychiatric Association.’
‘ Psychiatrists ask Liberals to keep cannabis illegal up until the age of 21’
The association also asks for restrictions on the amount and potency of cannabis products available to those aged 21-25.