# Weed at the LCBO....



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I'm not sure how I feel about this.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

butterknucket said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about this.


how do you feel about beer at the LCBO?


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

butterknucket said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about this.


Everything the government touches turns to shit. People will still buy from their connections because it will be less bullshit.

What I don't like is that they haven't got anything in place to deal with dumb ass stoners driving round saying "auhh man I can drive so much better when I'm stoned."


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I thought they are opening NEW separate outlets for their drug dealing?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

When I moved from Ontario to Alberta, the one thing that disappointed me here was they way they sell alcohol. It was a real step down. Prices are higher for the stuff I liked and the selection isn't as good, and a few of the stores were no better than a mildly run down conveniences store. Had to search around the places that were minimally acceptable. The first time I went to a neighbourhood store to get a 4 pack of Guinness it was $16+. WTF !?! It was only $12 at the LCBO a couple of weeks before. Give me the LCBO anytime, and even The Beer Store. 

Despite how many people bitch about the LCBO and major breweries semi-monopoly of The Beer Store, I'm all for the LCBO control of Cannabis products. It's an intoxicant and just like alcohol, recreational use has to be *regulated*. And no one is going to change my g-damned mind on this. What they do here in Alberta, well that depends on who wins the next election and how draconian the bluer gov't get about its regulation and distribution. 

Oh shit! This politics! I HATE f-ing politics, Okay, *I'm out of here* before my blood pressure and anxiety start to turn me into a green skinned comic book character.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I thought they are opening NEW separate outlets for their drug dealing?


Totally separate retail outlets but under the administration of the LCBO.


----------



## amagras (Apr 22, 2015)

But is that a fact ya?


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2017)

How many potheads will pay more for their weed + 13% HST?

Dealers will be dealers...


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

At 2 in the morning you ain't gonna be calling an LCBO or what ever. And you'll pay the price that is asked.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2017)

One thing though, hopefully the weed from Wynne will have all the fertilizers flushed out, and no pesticides will be used. They won't spike their weed with fentanyl either.


----------



## NorlinNorm (Dec 31, 2016)

Fentanyl spiked weed, now, that is scary!


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2017)

Wardo said:


> they haven't got anything in place to deal with dumb ass stoners driving


My concern is those at work who go out at break time for a puff.
I used to work in a warehouse where close to a dozen guys would do this.
Then they would hop on their 10 ton forklifts.
It was scary. I seen one go through a cinder block wall and two tip-overs.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Are they going to sell clones too?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Wardo said:


> Everything the government touches turns to shit. People will still buy from their connections because it will be less bullshit.
> 
> What I don't like is that they haven't got anything in place to deal with dumb ass stoners driving round saying "auhh man I can drive so much better when I'm stoned."


cause, driving around drunk is soooo much better? anyone driving around stoned when weed is legalized, was doing when it wasn't. you've been driving with those people the entire time you've had a license. just like drunks drivers. 



Electraglide said:


> At 2 in the morning you ain't gonna be calling an LCBO or what ever. And you'll pay the price that is asked.


except potheads dont call dealer mcdope at 2 in the morning, you're talking about coke/crack. afaik, they aint trying to sell that at the lcbo


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I think the only way they will have success is to have a better product at a better price. I am skeptical of that happening. First, if the employees get the same wages as LCBO workers, plus the buildings (or rent), then utility cost on top.

Colorado seems to be making money on it. How do they do it? Why not copy an existing, successful model?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

I'll keep buying mine online


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> cause, driving around drunk is soooo much better? anyone driving around stoned when weed is legalized, was doing when it wasn't. you've been driving with those people the entire time you've had a license. just like drunks drivers.
> 
> 
> 
> except potheads dont call dealer mcdope at 2 in the morning, you're talking about coke/crack. afaik, they aint trying to sell that at the lcbo


They used to cheezy. 'specially if you delivered.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> cause, driving around drunk is soooo much better? anyone driving around stoned when weed is legalized, was doing when it wasn't. you've been driving with those people the entire time you've had a license. just like drunks drivers.
> 
> 
> 
> except potheads dont call dealer mcdope at 2 in the morning, you're talking about coke/crack. afaik, they aint trying to sell that at the lcbo


I'd have to agree. Potheads always have their shit together as far as always having some on hand.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Player99 said:


> One thing though, hopefully the weed from Wynne will have all the fertilizers flushed out, and no pesticides will be used. They won't spike their weed with fentanyl either.


You'll have to pay extra for the organic variety.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

no gmo weed! hahahahaah


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Wardo said:


> Everything the government touches turns to shit.


Yep, this will be a clusterfuck.





> What I don't like is that they haven't got anything in place to deal with dumb ass stoners driving round saying "auhh man I can drive so much better when I'm stoned."



I'm willing to bet that they won't have anything reliable in place before they legalize it. I expect there to be some carnage on the roads and that someone will sue the federal government over the death of a loved one.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I thought they are opening NEW separate outlets for their drug dealing?



It is unclear whether they will be selling it in existing LCBO locations or if they will be opening new ones run by the LCBO.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> cause, driving around drunk is soooo much better?


Um, nobody said it was. Nice straw man argument though.




> anyone driving around stoned when weed is legalized, was doing when it wasn't.


I expect there will be more of them once it is legalized.





> except potheads dont call dealer mcdope at 2 in the morning,



Several of the ones I know do.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I had the exact same experience when I went West. As much as privatization is trumpeted as womb of lower prices, I've seen no evidence of it. The data I have seen shows that the only thing that goes down are employee wages. Unfortunately, employee assaults and deaths simultanesouly go up because privatized places will have a single employee working late night hours; this leads to more robberies. 

TG




Robert1950 said:


> When I moved from Ontario to Alberta, the one thing that disappointed me here was they way they sell alcohol. It was a real step down. Prices are higher for the stuff I liked and the selection isn't as good, and a few of the stores were no better than a mildly run down conveniences store. Had to search around the places that were minimally acceptable. The first time I went to a neighbourhood store to get a 4 pack of Guinness it was $16+. WTF !?! It was only $12 at the LCBO a couple of weeks before. Give me the LCBO anytime, and even The Beer Store.
> 
> Despite how many people bitch about the LCBO and major breweries semi-monopoly of The Beer Store, I'm all for the LCBO control of Cannabis products. It's an intoxicant and just like alcohol, recreational use has to be *regulated*. And no one is going to change my g-damned mind on this. What they do here in Alberta, well that depends on who wins the next election and how draconian the bluer gov't get about its regulation and distribution.
> 
> Oh shit! This politics! I HATE f-ing politics, Okay, *I'm out of here* before my blood pressure and anxiety start to turn me into a green skinned comic book character.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

TG, you aren't factoring in income taxes that support the system - assumes the system doesn't pay for itself, which with high wages and lower prices how could it? Dunno, didn't look, is that info available?

Been in Alberta since 1996, so pre-privatization. Not aware of a single liquor store robbery in Edmonton. I'm sure there have been some, and for sure some rural hotel vendors have been hit in that time, but nothing high profile or deadly.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Hi Keto,

I don't follow your point about income taxes. I'm sorry, I cannot comment because I don't understand what you are arguing.

I cannot remember where I read the study. It may have been in an academic journal on work but I honestly cannot remember. I shouldn't be so loose with sources. If have time I will take a quick peak, but it's my kid's birthday this weekend so time is short.

The data I cited above wasn't confined to Edmonton, but FWIW there have been liquor store robberies in Edmonton. I pulled up the following with a google search so its pretty anecdotal, but they are pretty typical of what I mention above; late night, lone employee or little staff around:

August 01, 2017 - Robbery with a weapon near Calgary Trail and 68 Avenue

Violent robberies at Edmonton liquor stores on Monday ends in arrest and 40 criminal charges

Charges laid after clerk shot in attempted robbery at Calgary liquor store (Calgary, but close enough!)

Obliviously a few links to news stories hardly makes for securing a hard and fast cause/effect relationship, but they do illustrate the findings of a much broader and systematic study.

TG



keto said:


> TG, you aren't factoring in income taxes that support the system - assumes the system doesn't pay for itself, which with high wages and lower prices how could it? Dunno, didn't look, is that info available?
> 
> Been in Alberta since 1996, so pre-privatization. Not aware of a single liquor store robbery in Edmonton. I'm sure there have been some, and for sure some rural hotel vendors have been hit in that time, but nothing high profile or deadly.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

colchar said:


> I expect there will be more of them once it is legalized.


what evidence do you have to suggest that would be the case? if someone isn't smoking pot because it's currently illegal, they have already demonstrated a propensity to follow the law.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Wardo said:


> What I don't like is that they haven't got anything in place to deal with dumb ass stoners driving round saying "auhh man I can drive so much better when I'm stoned."


They do, though. They have a device to measure THC content (or whatever it would be) now. I know this because a local radio station has invited our Police force to talk about it more than once.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

laristotle said:


> My concern is those at work who go out at break time for a puff.
> I used to work in a warehouse where close to a dozen guys would do this.
> Then they would hop on their 10 ton forklifts.
> It was scary. I seen one go through a cinder block wall and two tip-overs.


Drug testing is available to any employer who has employees involved in activities where safety is a concern. Expect a rise in testing.

I read the article about the proposed number of outlets - they have grossly underestimated the demand. It wont make a dent in organized crime. They should have followed the Colorado model (private, regulated dispensaries). They have a tax surplus now.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

traynor_garnet said:


> Hi Keto,
> 
> I don't follow your point about income taxes. I'm sorry, I cannot comment because I don't understand what you are arguing.
> 
> ...



In the Calgary one, there were more than 1 employee working. The 2 incidents in Edmonton are 5 years apart, and only 1 involved an injury worse than getting bear sprayed - unpleasant but nothing serious. I know, I haven't done a bunch of research either, and I'm not trying to bludgeon you with this. But there's no rampant rash of robberies at private liquor stores out here, guaranteed.

Ontario taxpayers (whether income tax or HST), I contend, are likely supporting the LCBO system. Again, no time to do a bunch of research, I say 'likely' just based on my earlier assertion of higher paid employees and (unconfirmed) lower prices. Like anything, with liquor if you shop around you find deals, at least out here.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Drug testing is available to any employer who has employees involved in activities where safety is a concern. Expect a rise in testing.
> 
> .


the current most widely used drug screen only tells you that the person has smoked pot within a 30 day period. it does not tell you if you are high right now, and to what degree. 
once it is legalized that particular test will be useless. right now, to test positive means getting fired on the spot, because it is an illegal activity. once that is no longer the case, you will not be able to get fired for smoking pot. only for being high on company time. i know the drill, because i work in the trades, and i smoke weed too. not at work of course. i find it amazing, the resistance people have for ending marijuana prohibition, considering they accept alcohol, a far more dangerous and unhealthy substance. $50 says those people who fall into this category will never accept that their opinion stems solely from being subjected to relentless propaganda.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> what evidence do you have to suggest that would be the case? if someone isn't smoking pot because it's currently illegal, they have already demonstrated a propensity to follow the law.



When it is legalized it will be far more widely available and accessible and people won't have to hide the fact that they are smoking it. Because it will be out in the open, usage is likely to increase and we will also see an increase in people driving while under the influence especially since there is currently no accurate test for it like there is for alcohol.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Drug testing is available to any employer who has employees involved in activities where safety is a concern. Expect a rise in testing.



They would still need to demonstrate a _bona fide_ occupational reason for doing so. Those reasons won't change because pot is legalized. If those tests are required now they will still be required. If they aren't required now they won't be able to test if the circumstances of the job haven't changed.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> $50 says those people who fall into this category will never accept that their opinion stems solely from being subjected to relentless propaganda.



That is a hell of an assumption. How do you know those opposed to it aren't opposed for perfectly legitimate reasons? I am sort of opposed to it and that has nothing to do with propaganda. And yes I have smoked weed (I used to smoke it regularly when I was younger).


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

colchar said:


> When it is legalized it will be far more widely available and accessible and people won't have to hide the fact that they are smoking it. Because it will be out in the open, usage is likely to increase and we will also see an increase in people driving while under the influence especially since there is currently no accurate test for it like there is for alcohol.


again the people you are talking about are already driving while high. if the people who will begin smoking it once legalized will drive while smoking they are the obvious exception to common human behavior. it is far more likely that the 3 main types of new smokers will be: people who just want to try it so they can say they tried it, people who's jobs are such that it could be too costly, and self medicating medicinal users. it's just not the kind of behavior these people would normally exhibit. 99% of all the people who will drive stoned have been smoking it, and have been driving stoned the entire time, as i said. there may be a slight uptick, but it will be a blip. you wont be able to use police incident reports as a yardstick for at least 5 years. with whatever new test they come up with to ensure they continue to collect revenue, the bulk of the people they will catch are the people who have always done it. you'll need a baseline average before you can begin to look for trends.



colchar said:


> That is a hell of an assumption. How do you know those opposed to it aren't opposed for perfectly legitimate reasons? I am sort of opposed to it and that has nothing to do with propaganda. And yes I have smoked weed (I used to smoke it regularly when I was younger).


those people are not vocal of their concern for alchohol distribution, which is proven to be much worse, in all aspects one may care to look. we have decades of evidence to back it up. so much so, that it is considered to be common knowledge. therefore, their concerns about marijuana hold little value because they have always accepted a far more dangerous and unhealthy substance, their entire lives.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> They would still need to demonstrate a _bona fide_ occupational reason for doing so. Those reasons won't change because pot is legalized. If those tests are required now they will still be required. If they aren't required now they won't be able to test if the circumstances of the job haven't changed.


Agreed.

As was announced the other day, the proposed Ontario plan (and bear in mind nobody else has said what they'll do, so other provinces might do smething smarter or something more cumbersome) is NOT to sell through the LCBO but through a cannabis-specific version of the LCBO. I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, those folks have practice in monitoring age. On the other hand, what do they know about pot? Mind you, as someone who doesn't drink (so I don't go to the LCBO), I have no idea what sort of expertise their staff have in spirits. On the one hand, it seems silly to set up a second infrastructure of public employees. On the other hand, if those are decent-paying jobs, that's more of what folks want, isn't it? And if the staff only have to acquire expertise about pot, and not master both pot and spirits, maybe that makes them better at their job. I don't expect the guy who sells me paint to know everything about lumber.

But again, I don't know if it's a good idea or a poor one. I have no vested interest in either the LCBO or pot legalization since I have no interest in either product. All I know is it's the only idea on the table from any of the provinces at the moment.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

They could have made it easy instead of the cost it will take to open brick and mortar store staffed by highly paid employees with golden benefits and retirement packages.

If you can sell lottery tickets and smokes, you can sell dope.

Easy. No extra cost. Everything is in place already. After all, don't they say gambling is addictive too? I know cigarettes are....I just started to think about fighting them again.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> the current most widely used drug screen only tells you that the person has smoked pot within a 30 day period. it does not tell you if you are high right now, and to what degree.
> once it is legalized that particular test will be useless. right now, to test positive means getting fired on the spot, because it is an illegal activity. once that is no longer the case, you will not be able to get fired for smoking pot. only for being high on company time. i know the drill, because i work in the trades, and i smoke weed too. not at work of course. i find it amazing, the resistance people have for ending marijuana prohibition, considering they accept alcohol, a far more dangerous and unhealthy substance. $50 says those people who fall into this category will never accept that their opinion stems solely from being subjected to relentless propaganda.


As far as drug testing etc., try getting onto a Dow site or a lot of other sites in the patch if your test comes up positive for anything including smoke. that won't change once smoke becomes legal. And, in most instances, you can be fired.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

butterknucket said:


> I'd have to agree. Potheads always have their shit together as far as always having some on hand.


Not really. They run out the same as smokers run out of smokes. Then they make a drive to see what they can find or call someone up.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Electraglide said:


> As far as drug testing etc., try getting onto a Dow site or a lot of other sites in the patch if your test comes up positive for anything including smoke. that won't change once smoke becomes legal. And, in most instances, you can be fired.


it will have to matter once pot is legalized because that's what the law is supposed to do. you cannot fire someone for doing something that is not a crime, on your own time. right now, you can be fired for testing positive. when pot becomes legal, they will not be able to fire anyone or otherwise discriminate against them in any way for doing what is legal for all, on their own time. otherwise they will open themselves up for lawsuits, and problems with the labor board. it's simple math. 

this is the reason it's not legal yet. until one can accurately test if you are high now, and precisely what your level of intoxication is, you cannot legally fine someone who may be dwi and you cannot use the current testing methods to handle workplace issues. otherwise, it would be legal to fire or otherwise discriminate employees who drink alcohol, and use prescription medications.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Those are just examples from the first page Of a goggle search. It isn't exhaustive by any means. I also never claimed robberies were rampant, I merely claimed they increased.

The LCBO is profitable. $1.85 billion of profit in 2015. Note that isn't sales, that's actual profit.

An economist out of York University did a study years ago. It's a nice summary of each approach.

I'm spending several hours with a horde of young kids today. I'm going to need a drink afterwards and I won't care where it was purchased lol

TG



keto said:


> In the Calgary one, there were more than 1 employee working. The 2 incidents in Edmonton are 5 years apart, and only 1 involved an injury worse than getting bear sprayed - unpleasant but nothing serious. I know, I haven't done a bunch of research either, and I'm not trying to bludgeon you with this. But there's no rampant rash of robberies at private liquor stores out here, guaranteed.
> 
> Ontario taxpayers (whether income tax or HST), I contend, are likely supporting the LCBO system. Again, no time to do a bunch of research, I say 'likely' just based on my earlier assertion of higher paid employees and (unconfirmed) lower prices. Like anything, with liquor if you shop around you find deals, at least out here.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I'm afraid of the thought a people driving high. Think of all the spelling mistakes they're going to make ..........


----------



## leftysg (Mar 29, 2008)

Wi


High/Deaf said:


> I'm afraid of the thought a people driving high. Think of all the spelling mistakes they're going to make ..........


The way my auto correct works on my messages, it makes me look like I've already jumped the gun on potential use.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

leftysg said:


> Wi
> 
> 
> The way my auto correct works on my messages, it makes me look like I've already jumped the gun on potential use.



I told the cops once at a checkstop that I don't drink and drive because I'm afraid of typo's. Not so amused, they were. 

And the truth is I don't drink and drive because I'm afraid of spillage (alcohol abuse, in my book).


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

colchar said:


> I'm willing to bet that they won't have anything reliable in place before they legalize it. I expect there to be some carnage on the roads and that someone will sue the federal government over the death of a loved one.














mhammer said:


> As was announced the other day, the proposed Ontario plan (and bear in mind nobody else has said what they'll do, so other provinces might do smething smarter or something more cumbersome) is NOT to sell through the LCBO but through a cannabis-specific version of the LCBO. I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, those folks have practice in monitoring age. On the other hand, what do they know about pot? Mind you, as someone who doesn't drink (so I don't go to the LCBO), I have no idea what sort of expertise their staff have in spirits.


you don't need any expertise at all. you only need to know how to run a register. everything else can be handled at the manufacturing level. one can be a non-drinker, and still make employee of the month at any lcbo or liquor store. you don't need to know anything. same with pot. you think the guy at the grocery store knows anything about food or cleaning products? at the weed store, it will most likely come pre-packaged, and have an expiration date on it. just like alchohol does now. you'll get a few people at the lcbo that know a little bit about alchohol, but it's not neccessary to hire only those for the lcbo to be effective and successful. it's not like anyone will ever walk in there and need to know which weed goes best with meat, and which goes best with fish or fowl. 99% of the time, the only thing a stoner will want to know is: how strong is it? how does it taste? the manufacturer can put that right on the label with the expiration date. while one can expect the government (any government) to do things without entirely thinking it through, business rarely operates that way. they will shield themselves from liability as best as they possibly can. you really can look at past behavior and predict the future's behavior to some degree.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> it will have to matter once pot is legalized because that's what the law is supposed to do. you cannot fire someone for doing something that is not a crime, on your own time. right now, you can be fired for testing positive. when pot becomes legal, they will not be able to fire anyone or otherwise discriminate against them in any way for doing what is legal for all, on their own time. otherwise they will open themselves up for lawsuits, and problems with the labor board. it's simple math.
> 
> this is the reason it's not legal yet. until one can accurately test if you are high now, and precisely what your level of intoxication is, you cannot legally fine someone who may be dwi and you cannot use the current testing methods to handle workplace issues. otherwise, it would be legal to fire or otherwise discriminate employees who drink alcohol, and use prescription medications.


Tell you what cheezy, when it becomes legal in Canada you come out to the patch and try to get on a Dow site to work or most of the other sites with a test that shows positive to THC or almost any other non prescription drug. Hell, pot is legal in Nevada but see what happens if you go to work at say the Solar One area and test positive. Same with alcohol. I used to do traffic control in B.C.. I could not drink for 24 hrs, before going to work. The companies can set their own rules, especially if it's an international company. As far as DUI goes, they can give you a roadside "sobriety" test and if the officer thinks you are under the influence he can, among other things, pull your license for 24 hrs. or put you in a place where you can sleep it off.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

keto said:


> In the Calgary one, there were more than 1 employee working. The 2 incidents in Edmonton are 5 years apart, and only 1 involved an injury worse than getting bear sprayed - unpleasant but nothing serious. I know, I haven't done a bunch of research either, and I'm not trying to bludgeon you with this. But there's no rampant rash of robberies at private liquor stores out here, guaranteed.
> 
> Ontario taxpayers (whether income tax or HST), I contend, are likely supporting the LCBO system. Again, no time to do a bunch of research, I say 'likely' just based on my earlier assertion of higher paid employees and (unconfirmed) lower prices. Like anything, with liquor if you shop around you find deals, at least out here.


The liquor stores get robbed about the same amount as any other place around here.....you just don't hear about it much. The wife's great niece quit working in one after getting robbed 3 times in less than two months so she went to work for one of the cash advance places.....which got robbed. They drove thru the door, hooked a chain up to the ATM and drove off.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

colchar said:


> They would still need to demonstrate a _bona fide_ occupational reason for doing so. Those reasons won't change because pot is legalized. If those tests are required now they will still be required. If they aren't required now they won't be able to test if the circumstances of the job haven't changed.


Bona fide occupational reason? They can just re-write their rules as an employer. Any time and without explanation to the employee or anyone else about why they did it. All they have to do is notify you about the new rules. You might not like the new rules but if you want to keep working then you don't get caught when you break the rules.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Electraglide said:


> Bona fide occupational reason? They can just re-write their rules as an employer. Any time and without explanation to the employee or anyone else about why they did it. All they have to do is notify you about the new rules. You might not like the new rules but if you want to keep working then you don't get caught when you break the rules.


Actually they can't. And if the substance is legal, then there is even less justification for insisting on it UNLESS there is evidence that it poses risk to the employer or customers. In the U.S., employers can insist on all sorts of stuffbecause THEY are the ones usually paying for the health insurance, so they can make a strong case of drug use posing "undue hardship" on the employer. Because WE pay for health insurance through taxes here, employers cannot make that case. But if there is anything invasive, there better damn well be a VERY defensible reason fordoing it or else there is litigation in the air.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Actually they can't. And if the substance is legal, then there is even less justification for insisting on it UNLESS there is evidence that it poses risk to the employer or customers. In the U.S., employers can insist on all sorts of stuffbecause THEY are the ones usually paying for the health insurance, so they can make a strong case of drug use posing "undue hardship" on the employer. Because WE pay for health insurance through taxes here, employers cannot make that case. But if there is anything invasive, there better damn well be a VERY defensible reason fordoing it or else there is litigation in the air.


Well, until it is legal, all across Canada, this is all a moot point anyway. But, for the point of, "What the hell", let's take alcohol. For those of us over a certain age and not under any legal bans, it is legal. If I still drank I could go into the basement and kill the 40 of Tequila. Then wait until I blew less than .05 I believe and drive. There are a lot of places around here that if I blew .05 I would not be allowed on their site. Some that if I blew anything, I would be escorted to the gates which would cause my employer to say good bye. Personally I don't think that a lot of employers are going to change their rules just because pot has become legal. But as I said, it's a moot point because it ain't legal yet and probably won't be for a while. Let's also make it clear that we are talking about recreational use and not medical.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

that's because, like i said earlier, there is no test that currently knows that you are high right now, and precisely what your level of intoxication/impairment is for marijuana. there is one for alcohol. which is why on a chem site (i've worked on dupont, hercules, kodak, astra zeneca sites for nearly half of my career) or any site with strict safety standards you must sign a form giving consent to submit to testing. you can work on those sites and only drink on your friday nite, and you'll be fine on monday morning. same with an airline pilot. he has to (afaik) be no alcohol consumption for 24 hours before flying. but no one tells him he can have alcohol or he loses his job. pot won't be any different, once they develop the proper testing.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> ... once they develop the proper testing.


That'll involve the cops bangin yer nose of the steering wheel to get a roadside blood sample ... lol


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Electraglide said:


> There are a lot of places around here that if I blew .05 I would not be allowed on their site. .


IMO, thats the way it should be. I don't care what people do at home, but don't bring it to work and endanger my crew.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

agreed, scotty, it doesn't belong at work. even when safety is not the issue (say, if you work in a call center or some cube farm) it's still not why you're there.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I don't think anyone is saying you should be able to get high at work. I think they're saying that you can show positive for pot but not be high when you're tested....and that's an issue that needs to be resolved with a test that more accurately rates impairment as well as a standard that constitutes legal impairment.


----------



## RedFenderBender (Oct 7, 2016)

Player99 said:


> One thing though, hopefully the weed from Wynne will have all the fertilizers flushed out, and no pesticides will be used. They won't spike their weed with fentanyl either.


Whoa...Where do i purchase the Fentanyl Weed? Sounds mighty tasty... 100 mcg ?
Everything in Moderation.....Haaaaaaa

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Scotty said:


> IMO, thats the way it should be. I don't care what people do at home, but don't bring it to work and endanger my crew.


This doesn't mean taking what ever to work and drinking or smoking up on site......means showing up to work with anything that shows up on the test.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2017)

a snippet from the The Beaverton

Ontarians forced to hang out with Kathleen Wynne now that she’s their dealer

_“Fellow Ontarians, I will fight for your wallet, your education, and your right to some of 
this primo White Widow,” said Wynne in a prepared speech from her Finance Minister’s den. 
“Also, do you want to order some pizza and chill out for the next four years?”_


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Player99 said:


> One thing though, hopefully the weed from Wynne will have all the fertilizers flushed out, and no pesticides will be used. They won't spike their weed with fentanyl either.


It will be well fertilized and pesticided too. Hydroponics is the way they grow it.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

laristotle said:


> _“Also, do you want to order some pizza and chill out for the next four years?”_


long as she don't want netflix and chill, it's not as bad. hahahaha



Electraglide said:


> It will be well fertilized and pesticided too. Hydroponics is the way they grow it.


that's old school already. they have a new way now, no medium at all, only water & chemical fertilizer


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

JBFairthorne said:


> I don't think anyone is saying you should be able to get high at work. I think they're saying that you can show positive for pot but not be high when you're tested....and that's an issue that needs to be resolved with a test that more accurately rates impairment as well as a standard that constitutes legal impairment.


Electraglide should know that the oil industry and huge construction conglomerates have been locked in rooms with lawyers for months to figure out how this is going to work.

We know, you're in oil and gas that is more stringent than some industries, but that hasn't stopped cokeheads and crackheads using it for years. Never mind people with prescription drug problems. Thats why you have 'dry' camps out of necessity. Regardless of what you're using, people go as far as buying fake realistic looking plastic dicks to whip out so when you're getting tested and the doc is watching you can still piss synthetic urine into a cup.

If anyone has been paying attention they apparently have test strips, like a pH strip that will vaguely detect levels of THC. The problem is figuring out what is intoxicated and for who's metabolism.

Im too lazy to cite a bunch of sources, but in states like Colorado and Washington it has had an over all positive effect compared to the good ol' days of prohibition. Surprise surprise. Their biggest problems is again enforcement grey areas on the road and having to hire private security forces to handle the hard cash since banks won't take it again due to federal prohibition.

Im having a hoot listening to a bunch of crusty men who I thought would be a bit more supportive, but again I think this is more political than common sense.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> long as she don't want netflix and chill, it's not as bad. hahahaha
> 
> 
> 
> that's old school already. they have a new way now, no medium at all, only water & chemical fertilizer


If what I got taught is right, water and liquid fertilizer is one form of hydroponics. Grew more than a million Loblolly pines at the nursery that way in greenhouses. Worked well for other plants growing in the back of some of the greenhouses too.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

TheYanChamp said:


> Electraglide should know that the oil industry and huge construction conglomerates have been locked in rooms with lawyers for months to figure out how this is going to work.
> 
> We know, you're in oil and gas that is more stringent than some industries, but that hasn't stopped cokeheads and crackheads using it for years. Never mind people with prescription drug problems. Thats why you have 'dry' camps out of necessity. Regardless of what you're using, people go as far as buying fake realistic looking plastic dicks to whip out so when you're getting tested and the doc is watching you can still piss synthetic urine into a cup.
> 
> ...


They can detect synthetic piss. Anyway the testing will not change when ever the law finally does. The test strips have been used for years to among other things wipe the windshields of semis.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2017)




----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)




----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Ontario's plan to sell pot draws criticism from users and advocates


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

gee, what a surprise it's more about collecting money than doing the right thing.!


----------



## Guest (Sep 12, 2017)

and making the public unions happy who will (as always) support her and 
demonize the oppositions to make sure the libs stay in power so that they get 
the high paying, monopolized jobs that the private sector can do more efficiently.

oh .. dealers will also be happy because the high price of gov't pot will assure that they'll stay in business.


----------



## keefsdad (Feb 7, 2006)

They have no idea what they are doing. People are already used to having all kinds of choice, convenience, and customer service from the dispensaries.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

keefsdad said:


> They have no idea what they are doing. People are already used to having all kinds of choice, convenience, and customer service from the dispensaries.



hell, when i left canada, one of my dealers would deliver, the other had a garage he operated like a dispensary. jars of all this weed that had names i know nothing about. also tons of edibles that unfortunately do nothing to me. none of it stays in me long enough to actually break down the thc


----------



## Captn Platypus (May 27, 2017)

They definitely need better controls in place for roadside tests. If you haven't heard about the officer in the states who was arresting perfectly innocent young adults, check out this video. 

I hope this is the right one!


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

On thing I'm interested in seeing, that no one is yet talking about, is the marketing of weed once legalized.
Weed has always been associated with counter-culture, youth, hippies, stoners, and more recently those with serious illnesses etc....(before you get yer panties in a bunch, compare that to, say, single malt scotch). I'm curious to see if/how somebody markets it to change its perception (or will legalizing be all that's needed to change its perception?). Will it be as socially acceptable for a (middle class) mom of 7-year olds to puff some chronic in front of her kids as it is for her to have a glass of chardonnay at Sunday dinner?
I ask that as someone who hasn't touched the stuff in nearly 15 years, but when legalized will undoubtedly give it a shot "for old times sake"...but I'm not sure its something I'd be comfortable with doing in front of my school age daughter....and yes, hypocrisy, blah,blah,blah....but I also have a corncob pipe and a hookah that I don't let her see me using either.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

And what will be allowed, vis-a-vis advertising/marketing in print media, on TV, and on-line?

I remember well, taking the bus to CEGEP (junior college) in 1970 or so, and seeing a sale ad for Trojan condoms on the window of a major pharmacy on Sherbrooke Ave. in NDG, alongside sale prices for Kleenex, Comet cleanser, and other things of a pharmacy nature. Seeing them even _mentioned_ publicly, let alone advertised in big letters, was revolutionary.

So will TV ads show up for branded products, but only after, say 10:00PM, like "chat lines" or "male enhancement products"?

There is so much to think about when something that has been underground for so long is being integrated into "normal life".


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Diablo said:


> On thing I'm interested in seeing, that no one is yet talking about, is the marketing of weed once legalized.
> Weed has always been associated with counter-culture, youth, hippies, stoners, and more recently those with serious illnesses etc....(before you get yer panties in a bunch, compare that to, say, single malt scotch). I'm curious to see if/how somebody markets it to change its perception (or will legalizing be all that's needed to change its perception?). Will it be as socially acceptable for a (middle class) mom of 7-year olds to puff some chronic in front of her kids as it is for her to have a glass of chardonnay at Sunday dinner?
> I ask that as someone who hasn't touched the stuff in nearly 15 years, but when legalized will undoubtedly give it a shot "for old times sake"...but I'm not sure its something I'd be comfortable with doing in front of my school age daughter....and yes, hypocrisy, blah,blah,blah....but I also have a corncob pipe and a hookah that I don't let her see me using either.


Interesting question. If it's equivalent to alcohol it will be advertised everywhere. If it's equivalent to smoking then there will be no advertising, the packaging will have nasty pictures and warnings and the product will be hidden behind metal doors. Like cigarettes you can't smoke it here or there and like alcohol you can't smoke it anywhere (sorry for the Dr Suess thing but it was right there).


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

Legalization is all about taxation revenue. Thinking there would be any morality behind it is hopelessly delusional.

What I would really like to see that along with the expectation of taxation revenue, is a decrease in personal income tax.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2017)

allthumbs56 said:


> sorry for the Dr Suess thing but it was right there


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2017)

I guess once it's legal I will start in on the marrywanna.


----------



## RedFenderBender (Oct 7, 2016)

Ohhh let me put a "spoiler" out there for ya... Theres no need to wait 4 legalization....Its Da Bomb!

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

LanceT said:


> .. Thinking there would be any morality behind it is hopelessly delusional.


I believe so.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Diablo said:


> On thing I'm interested in seeing, that no one is yet talking about, is the marketing of weed once legalized.
> Weed has always been associated with counter-culture, youth, hippies, stoners, and more recently those with serious illnesses etc....(before you get yer panties in a bunch, compare that to, say, single malt scotch). I'm curious to see if/how somebody markets it to change its perception (or will legalizing be all that's needed to change its perception?). Will it be as socially acceptable for a (middle class) mom of 7-year olds to puff some chronic in front of her kids as it is for her to have a glass of chardonnay at Sunday dinner?
> I ask that as someone who hasn't touched the stuff in nearly 15 years, but when legalized will undoubtedly give it a shot "for old times sake"...but I'm not sure its something I'd be comfortable with doing in front of my school age daughter....and yes, hypocrisy, blah,blah,blah....but I also have a corncob pipe and a hookah that I don't let her see me using either.


what you are talking about, with seemingly a partial awareness of it, is called "stigma". webster defines it as _a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person.
_
i do not expect the stigma to go away any time soon, because it is a social construct, and therefore, much more difficult to change. it is perpetuated by too many people for various reasons.

for myself, i never believed i was doing anything wrong by smoking pot. i never hid it from my kids, because hypocrisy. that's not how you develop trust.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> what you are talking about, with seemingly a partial awareness of it, is called "stigma". webster defines it as _a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person.
> _
> i do not expect the stigma to go away any time soon, because it is a social construct, and therefore, much more difficult to change. it is perpetuated by too many people for various reasons.
> 
> for myself, i never believed i was doing anything wrong by smoking pot. i never hid it from my kids, because hypocrisy. that's not how you develop trust.


absolutely a stigma.
I think the concern with kids, is age. When my kid is 40-something like me, I have no issue with them making their own decisions and their responsibility. i wont have that same stigma with ppl my own age.
My concern is, when they feel ready to do that as a teenager. we know how "adult" kids feel when they reach a certain age. its usually more adult than they truly are. I'm not sure I want to give them license to do what I do as a middle ager, when they are 16-18 and think they know as much or more than I do. I can see that you may still see the hypocrisy in that...but I guess it depends if you consider an 18 yr old to be your equal or not.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Diablo said:


> absolutely a stigma.
> I think the concern with kids, is age. When my kid is 40-something like me, I have no issue with them making their own decisions and their responsibility. i wont have that same stigma with ppl my own age.
> My concern is, when they feel ready to do that as a teenager. we know how "adult" kids feel when they reach a certain age. its usually more adult than they truly are. I'm not sure I want to give them license to do what I do as a middle ager, when they are 16-18 and think they know as much or more than I do. I can see that you may still see the hypocrisy in that...but I guess it depends if you consider an 18 yr old to be your equal or not.



hmmmmm sort kinda, but not really...

i started smoking it when i was 12. while i didn't encourage my kids to use it that early, i felt like once they hit their mid teens, i no longer had much control over what they did. all i could do is trust in what i had been able to teach them up to that point, and after that, all i could really do is guide them best as i knew how. i worked alot of hours then, so i couldn't be there as much as some folks can. being a single dad during that time i didn't have alot of choice _but_ to trust them. they did better than i did, as far as staying out of trouble goes. but my approach was very different than my dad's. my kids had more freedom, but more trust too. they were made to understand that we all work together to give each other the best life we can. so while i worked, they cleaned house, did their own laundry, and much of the cooking. on top of that was homework, and music. (son #1 played bass back then) the whole idle hands thing, know what i mean? but for us, i felt like, if i don't have to be discreet to drink a beer or glass of wine, then weed was no different. i believed that being open about it gave my advice a little more weight than my father's did with me, because they always knew i was being honest with them. i didn't hide anything from them, except occasionally, cookies. (but if i didn't i woulda never got any) i could be trusted to tell the truth. instead of trying to control their behavior, i expected them to control their own behavior. they made mistakes but they also dealt with the consequences. they knew where i kept my stash and paraphernalia. if they ever did pinch my bag, it was small enough that i couldn't tell. and i have a very keen eye for that.

so long story, but no, for us it wasn't about a teenager being my equal. it was about allowing them to make choices based on the best advice i could give them. once they became open about doing it themselves i only told them not in the house, until you're 18. 

ironically, their mother is a bigger pothead even than i am. son #2 is 28, and is occupying her basement. he's _still_ not allowed to smoke it in the house. hahahaha


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2018)

a snippet from the National Post

How much cannabis could you smoke and stay under the proposed legal limit for driving? The answer may be zero

_“If you look at the concentration of THC in the blood from the experimental studies, there is no amount of cannabis that you can smoke 
that will not at some point put you over the legal limit,” said Doug Beirness, a Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse researcher who serves 
on the expert committee advising the government on the issue.

“One puff? One hit? Is that going to do it? Well, I don’t know,” he said. “From what I can see from the blood concentration curves, it will 
still get you over the two or five (ng). Maybe only for a brief period of time, but it will get you over that level.”_


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

LanceT said:


> Legalization is all about taxation revenue. Thinking there would be any morality behind it is hopelessly delusional.
> 
> What I would really like to see that along with the expectation of taxation revenue, is a decrease in personal income tax.


There won't be a "tax bonanza". Indeed, initially it will likely _cost_ the federal and provincial governments to introduce legal access. There will be the purchase of equipment for assessing DUI, and training people to use it. There will be inspection of sales outlets, whether private or public, and other costs we never think of (e.g., StatsCan will be monitoring sales and consumption and generating reports for parliament; Health Canada will be assessing and vetting new products). Any taxes will recover some of those costs, but I don't expect it to be profitable for a while.

Where governments _will_ benefit is in terms of not having the costs associateed with prosecution and incarceration. Incarceration for minor drug possession costs a bundle ( Federal inmate cost soars to $117Gs each per year ), and that doesn't include court costs, or the salaries of the crown prosecutors, nor the policing costs allocated to weed. That doesn't mean there would not be ANY legal or correctional costs associated with weed, because _somebody_ is gonna do something stupid, guaranteed. They do it with tobacco and alcohol, too, even though both are legal. But the costs associated with the sorts of things people would get moderate sentences for previously will be avoided. Those costs are certainly not the _principal_ motivation for legalization, but they soften the fiscal blow.

Like all wars, the war on drugs is a big expense. If you don't necessarily _have _to fight it, why spend the money to fight it?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mhammer said:


> There won't be a "tax bonanza". Indeed, initially it will likely _cost_ the federal and provincial governments to introduce legal access. There will be the purchase of equipment for assessing DUI, and training people to use it. There will be inspection of sales outlets, whether private or public, and other costs we never think of (e.g., StatsCan will be monitoring sales and consumption and generating reports for parliament; Health Canada will be assessing and vetting new products). Any taxes will recover some of those costs, but I don't expect it to be profitable for a while.
> 
> Where governments _will_ benefit is in terms of not having the costs associateed with prosecution and incarceration. Incarceration for minor drug possession costs a bundle ( Federal inmate cost soars to $117Gs each per year ), and that doesn't include court costs, or the salaries of the crown prosecutors, nor the policing costs allocated to weed. That doesn't mean there would not be ANY legal or correctional costs associated with weed, because _somebody_ is gonna do something stupid, guaranteed. They do it with tobacco and alcohol, too, even though both are legal. But the costs associated with the sorts of things people would get moderate sentences for previously will be avoided. Those costs are certainly not the _principal_ motivation for legalization, but they soften the fiscal blow.
> 
> Like all wars, the war on drugs is a big expense. If you don't necessarily _have _to fight it, why spend the money to fight it?



except that's not how it worked out for colorado. they created 18,000 jobs and added $2.4 billion to their economy. it wasn't taxes that did it. however, according to everything i read, the benefits appeared almost immediately.


----------



## _Azrael (Nov 27, 2017)

cheezyridr said:


> what you are talking about, with seemingly a partial awareness of it, is called "stigma". webster defines it as _a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person.
> _
> i do not expect the stigma to go away any time soon, because it is a social construct, and therefore, much more difficult to change. it is perpetuated by too many people for various reasons.
> 
> for myself, i never believed i was doing anything wrong by smoking pot. i never hid it from my kids, because hypocrisy. that's not how you develop trust.


I think the stigma might be age dependant. I'm 40 and I'm regularly exposed to people who smoke pot in public while walking down the street or hanging out outside a venue. And I'm not talking back alleys... I'm talking out front, in public. It's just not as big a deal as it used to be.

I don't smoke it (tested at work) and I'm not an expert, but from what I'm tracking in most places police haven't really bothered with pot in awhile, so casual users aren't all that afraid of getting caught. Further, years of "medical marijuana" have helped semi-legitimize the stuff, so people's perception has been being modified for awhile now. I'm sure perceptions vary between social circles and I'm obviously immersed in the music scene, but that's my perception.

As for black market drug dealers maintaining market share, I doubt it. I can easily make booze in my basement yet moonshine is hardly running the government out of business. The shiners make stronger stuff that costs less money and (for all intents and purposes) is tax free, yet I still go to the Liquor Mart because it's easier than having to call ahead to arrange pickup, work my schedule around his kid's hockey schedule and drop off my empties so he can refill them. It's way easier to go to the store and buy whatever I want and throw the bottles away afterwards. Plus, they have better selection.

And on that note; selection. Someone mentioned some dude running a dispensary out of his garage. Have you guys seen the inside of a major LCBO? It's a grocery store where every isle is booze. If Ontario builds that for pot-heads while maintaining legal pressure on black market retailers there ain't no way your average dealer is going to be able to compete. Even if he has a better, cheaper product most people will use whatever route is most convenient for them, and if they write the law correctly he could still end up in jail for dealing.

IMO.


----------

