Bill C-45: Canada's Legalization, The Drama Revs Up

And also today, Trudeau met with the Premiers and . . .

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is proposing to levy a federal excise tax on recreational marijuana once it becomes legal next July, with the provinces and territories receiving half the revenue.

Under a federal proposal put to premiers during a first ministers meeting Tuesday, each gram of pot would be subject to an excise tax of $1 on sales up to $10 and a 10 per cent tax on sales of more than $10." CTV News
 
oldbastage said:
Under a federal proposal put to premiers during a first ministers meeting Tuesday, each gram of pot would be subject to an excise tax of $1 on sales up to $10 and a 10 per cent tax on sales of more than $10." CTV News
Click to expand...

I'm... not opposed to the taxation of cannabis. I'm against taxing medicine, so there'd have to be a way to differentiate medicinal from recreational use (and I don't really see how to do that) for me to fully agree with the practice. But basic things such as food, water, electricity, natural gas, shelter, reasonably-priced clothing (IOW, I'd tax the HIGH-dollar "designer" stuff), and medicine shouldn't be taxable, IMHO, because people sort of need them to live. And if you don't tax any of those, you've got to look at things that people don't technically need... but will tend to buy anyway.

And a dollar per gram (and even less in practice, if people are going to be spending more than $10 per purchase), for a TAX that seems like the lowest rate that I've ever read about. It's almost like someone decided that they want tax income without actually turning the purchaser upside-down and shaking him until every last cent falls out, lol.

BtW, I am not Canadian. I do find myself wishing that I was, from time to time. Seems like y'all do a lot of things "the common sense way." Some things are a little screwy (I read about the Maple Syrup Cartel), but you'll have that anywhere.
 
Hi All,

That excise tax is $1 up to $10 per gram.

That is a 10% tax on a $10 gram.

It is a 20% tax on a $5 gram.

They get their dollar either way. Sounds like organized crime, doesn't it?

Welcome to Prohibition 2.0

If you have a medical licence, don't give it up.

The cops are coming after us and we won't be free until we fight this B.S. up to the Supreme Court.

Peace. :peace:
 
FeloniousPunk said:
It is a 20% tax on a $5 gram.
Click to expand...

Just how cheap IS an ounce of cannabis up there in the Great White North, anyway? If it goes for $5/gram, wow. That'd be $140/lid. And I've heard that it's currently selling for $100 to $120 per quarter-ounce around my neck of the woods. Everyone seems to want to get rich, I guess?
 
Sorry TorturedSoul,

I just picked $5 out of the air.

Some of our medical cannabis Licensed Producers have deals around that price, but it is an aberration. I just wanted to make the point that the tax is a flat tax of $1 up to $10/gram.

Here around the Hammer, I think the street price is around CA$200.00. I had an acquaintance who was growing and selling for $150/ounce. Any other Canucks with local prices?

I'm guessing you are south of the 49th parallel.

Peace. :peace:
 
TorturedSoul said:
I'm... not opposed to the taxation of cannabis. I'm against taxing medicine, so there'd have to be a way to differentiate medicinal from recreational use (and I don't really see how to do that) for me to fully agree with the practice.
Click to expand...

While it has been unsaid (but mentioned) the Medical Marijuana program should remain in place with patients buying directly from the Licensed Producers — I assume at a better price but I could be wrong.

TorturedSoul said:
And a dollar per gram (and even less in practice, if people are going to be spending more than $10 per purchase), for a TAX that seems like the lowest rate that I've ever read about. It's almost like someone decided that they want tax income without actually turning the purchaser upside-down and shaking him until every last cent falls out, lol.
Click to expand...

Ha! You must be joking, this is Canada. The excise tax (Federal) will be the buried tax — just like cigarettes & booze. On top of that, consumers will undoubtedly pay provincial + federal retail tax that varies from 5% to 15% depending upon the province. And we don't know what the municipalities might want to tack on.

I don't really know the street price now but illegal dispensaries & MOMs (Mail Order Marijuana) run from $150 - $250 per oz. LP's are $5 to $15 per gram. I am getting very good herb for $7.50 - $8.75 per + retail taxes (13% HST - harmonized sales tax - in my province).
 
IMO if they can't keep 30 grams around $150 or $5 per gram the black market will never go away. I know people who are "medical users" and buy a few grams every couple months just to get the packaging to prove legal status. After they have their packaging they aren't refilling it with LP cannabis...

Looking quickly at a few LP's and the cheapest (before shipping/taxes) 30 grams of whole flower they have for med patients are:

Tilray: $8 per gram or $240 per 30g
Whistler: $9 per gram or $270 per 30g
Tweed: $6 per gram or $180 per 30g
Broken Coast: $8.25 per gram or $247.50 per 30g
CannaFarms: $5.99 per gram or $179.70

If they decrease the price for rec to combat the black market they are going to have thousands of pissed off med patients that are being gouged badly for medicine!

The black market has ounces for as little as $100 from some MOM's. Going to be so many old time growers coming out, with far better product than these LP's. They have one heck of a fight to shutdown the black market!


Alberta is going to allow 4 plants per household with no storage limit at home. I have my federal grow papers as a medical patient and have storage limits. 1 gram over that limit and I am supposed to destroy it with kitty litter and water.

This is going to be a disaster!
 
Alberta has released their plan:

  • 18 years of age minimum
  • Specialty stores only — no liquor, tobacco or pharma etc.
  • Stores will be run by the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission but it was not announced whether they will use their own stores or allow privately run stores or some combination.
  • Private grows: 4 plants per household — with no height restriction (the Fed bill also will drop the height restriction)
 
For the full text of the Federal law as it goes back to Parliament for its 3rd Reading see:

Bill C-45
 
The other very interesting development is the formation of a LP Grower co-op that is presenting itself as a retail option for provinces. 12 of the LPs got together . . .

Canadian Cannabis Co-op includes: ABCann, Aphria, Bonify, CannTrust, Cronos Group, Emblem, Emerald, Hydropothecary, MedReleaf, Newstrike (Parent Company of Up Cannabis), Organigram, and Tilray . . . (Notable exclusions: Tweed (Canopy) & Aurora)

They say that they can organize a retail presence - both physical & online - for Alberta (in particular) in time for the kick off. Manitoba is shopping for the same independent option . . .

Source: Newswire
 
Thanks for the link to C-45 interesting reading.

From Part 1
Cultivation, propagation and harvesting — 18 years of age or older
(4) Unless authorized under this Act, it is prohibited for an individual who is 18 years of age or older to cultivate, propagate or harvest, or to offer to cultivate, propagate or harvest,
(a) a cannabis plant that is from a seed or plant material that they know is illicit cannabis; or
(b) more than four cannabis plants at any one time in their dwelling-house.

What is the definition of Illicit in line (a)? Does this mean the four plants we are allowed to grow can only be grown with government supplied seeds only?



cannabis accessory means
(a) a thing, including rolling papers or wraps, holders, pipes, water pipes, bongs and vaporizers, that is represented to be used in the consumption of cannabis or a thing that is represented to be used in the production of cannabis; or
(b) a thing that is deemed under subsection (3) to be represented to be used in the consumption or production of cannabis. (accessoire)




PART 8 
Search Warrant
Information for search warrant
87 (1) A justice who, on ex parte application, is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the following is in a place may, at any time, issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer, at any time, to search the place for it and to seize it:
(a) cannabis in respect of which this Act has been contravened;
(b) anything in which cannabis in respect of which this Act has been contravened is contained or concealed;
(c) offence-related property; or
(d) anything that will afford evidence in respect of an offence under this Act or an offence, in whole or in part, in relation to a contravention of this Act, under section 354 or 462.-31 of the Criminal Code.

Does this also mean that a peace officer get a warrant to search your home if you are found in possession of a cannabis accessory?

Bipolar
 
bipolar said:
Thanks for the link to C-45 interesting reading.

From Part 1
Cultivation, propagation and harvesting – 18 years of age or older
(4) Unless authorized under this Act, it is prohibited for an individual who is 18 years of age or older to cultivate, propagate or harvest, or to offer to cultivate, propagate or harvest,
(a) a cannabis plant that is from a seed or plant material that they know is illicit cannabis; or
(b) more than four cannabis plants at any one time in their dwelling-house.

What is the definition of Illicit in line (a)? Does this mean the four plants we are allowed to grow can only be grown with government supplied seeds only?



cannabis accessory means
(a) a thing, including rolling papers or wraps, holders, pipes, water pipes, bongs and vaporizers, that is represented to be used in the consumption of cannabis or a thing that is represented to be used in the production of cannabis; or
(b) a thing that is deemed under subsection (3) to be represented to be used in the consumption or production of cannabis. (accessoire)




PART 8 
Search Warrant
Information for search warrant
87 (1) A justice who, on ex parte application, is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the following is in a place may, at any time, issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer, at any time, to search the place for it and to seize it:
(a) cannabis in respect of which this Act has been contravened;
(b) anything in which cannabis in respect of which this Act has been contravened is contained or concealed;
(c) offence-related property; or
(d) anything that will afford evidence in respect of an offence under this Act or an offence, in whole or in part, in relation to a contravention of this Act, under section 354 or 462.-31 of the Criminal Code.

Does this also mean that a peace officer get a warrant to search your home if you are found in possession of a cannabis accessory?

Bipolar
Click to expand...

They way I interpret that is if you are found to be operating outside the bounds of the act and a warrant is issued confirming you are in contravention then any cannabis related devices found can be seized provided they are in contravention of the act.

So...if your growing 5 plants and your allowed to grow 4...you lose your grow gear but keep your pipe.

For instance...on three occasions in the last 6 months I have driven in to a RIDE program check, officer asked about the smell of weed, I show him my vaporizer, and he sends me on my way...still no knock on my door. I'm not medically licensed.
 
PART 6 
Cannabis Tracking System
Establishment and maintenance
81 The Minister may, using the information collected under section 82 and any other information to which the Minister has access,
establish and maintain a national cannabis tracking system to
(a) enable the tracking of cannabis;
(b) prevent cannabis from being diverted to an illicit market or activity; and
(c) prevent illicit cannabis from being a source of supply of cannabis in the legal market.

Authority to issue warrant
(8) A justice may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing the inspector named in it to enter a place and exercise any of the powers mentioned in paragraphs (2)*(a) to (n), subject to any conditions that are specified in the warrant, if the justice is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) the place is a dwelling-house but otherwise meets the conditions for entry described in subsection (1);
(b) entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of the regulations; and
(c) entry to the dwelling-house has been refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry will be refused.


A search warrant will be issued for the purpose of verifying compliance?
 
Thanks GrEeNdAyZ,

I agree.

One of the things the police said they didn't want to do during the Health Committee Hearings is be responsible for your plants. If they confiscate, they don't care if the plants to die.

I also believe that there are still laws on the books against drug paraphernalia. I wouldn't worry about them, but I haven't heard they will be repealed either.

This bill is Prohibition 2.0, not legalization. If it were legalization, we wouldn't be giving the cops HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for a legal plant. I expect the cops will come hard if there is a complaint. Try not to piss off your neighbours.

If you have a Medical licence, keep it and defend it.
 
bipolar said:
A search warrant will be issued for the purpose of verifying compliance?
Click to expand...

Not exactly, there still needs to be evidence that someone is breaking the law for a warrant to be issued. So a neighbor complains or a buddy rats you out or what ever...with that said, if your neighbors just a prick and a warrent were to be issued and a person is found to be in compliance then no harm no foul. But I can't imagine that it happens very often that a search warrant is issued for no reason.

Felonious...lol ya there are tons of old laws on the books that are just silly, cannabis related or not. I look at it this way, it's not going to be perfect but it's still a move in the right direction. You and I both know that no one dies from smoking a joint. I also think that there are health benefits in the use of this plant...I've been the first person to smoke weed with my two older children when they were in their late teens and although my 13 year old helps me water my plants, he sure as hell won't be touching it anytime soon.

I think, as a person all for legalization both medically and recreationaly that we still need to listen to and consider the other side of the argument. I have questions...like how do we control driving under the influence?...yes I totally think it's way different than alcohol but there is still some level of impairment that we need to atleast talk about...example: my daughter smokes a big fatty and has to go to Burlington. She's driving fine in her lane, signaling lane changes, hands and 10 and 2, phone in her purse...but she's doing 70K over the Skyway...you come over the top doing 120 K, just like me and everyone else, and slam into the back of her and everyone dies...I know it's crazy but do you get what I mean?

I totally agree it's going to need more work but we still need to hear from everyone. Not everyone likes it, and that's ok...we're Canadian. I don't question going to the Beer Store or the LCBO...I know lots of people that grow cannabis at home but I don't know anyone that has a still. Lol.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, as much as I think prohibition of this plant is dumb, not everyone agrees and I'm sure there is a solution that we can all agree on. But both sides have to listen to each other. In my opinion, Marc Emery, what ever his name is, "the king of pot"...if he would shut his trap once and a while he would have succeeded in his efforts to legalize years ago.
 
Hey GeEeNdAyZ,

I just want them to treat cannabis like everything else. The politicians and the cops don't care about traffic turbulence. So if they don't care about it for old people with reduced driving skills, why the big fuss over cannabis? Set a standard and apply it equally. I drove that highway for more than 30 years, and the skills of drivers is, shall we say, lacking. And they are worried about cannabis? Why didn't they care before now? Do they really think nobody has been driving high all these years? Political B.S. Cops need the work, can't lay them off...

I really believe that we got to where we are today BECAUSE of in your face activism. Those in control just don't cede power because you ask nicely. Do you remember the Bong laws? When activists stood up to those laws, their enforcement dwindled.

Peace. :peace:
 
bipolar said:
From Part 1
Cultivation, propagation and harvesting — 18 years of age or older
(4) Unless authorized under this Act, it is prohibited for an individual who is 18 years of age or older to cultivate, propagate or harvest, or to offer to cultivate, propagate or harvest,
(a) a cannabis plant that is from a seed or plant material that they know is illicit cannabis; or
(b) more than four cannabis plants at any one time in their dwelling-house.

What is the definition of Illicit in line (a)? Does this mean the four plants we are allowed to grow can only be grown with government supplied seeds only?
Click to expand...
Yes. Just like the fine print in the legal medical grow license. You are supposed to only buy seeds or clones from the LPs. Very difficult to ever enforce but they wanted it on the books.

GrEeNdAyZ said:
In my opinion, Marc Emery, what ever his name is, "the king of pot"...if he would shut his trap once and a while he would have succeeded in his efforts to legalize years ago.
Click to expand...

Haha. He does talk. But it also took a government who would make the effort. I don’t know if you watched any of the hearings, but one Liberal did make a comment to an opposing Conservative that they would have the opportunity to re-criminalize it once they got back in power . . .
 
I totally agree with you on all your points...it's just we are so dam close to something close to legalization that I would hate for it to backfire now. Like I said, I've had a few interactions with police totally unrelated to pot but it came up because, well, it stinks and it was no big deal...they asked, I told them the truth and away I went with my weed and device. So I might be a little biased when it comes to the cops because of that.

Honestly I'm thinking that police services are asking the federal and provincial governments to slow down because they are unsure and are not being advised on how they are supposed to police the end of prohibition. If that's the case, I can't fault them for wanting to know how to do their jobs.

I agree activists have got us to where we are today...the government is listening to us because of the work the king of pot and others have done. Now we have to listen to the concerns of the other side. I think our conversation right now is a great example...your not a big fan of the POPO...they really don't bother me in the slightest...we may not agree but I don't think you think I'm an ass because of it...I hope not anyway, lol.

I'm more concerned with taxation and how it will effect the person that actually has a medical need. I'd rather not pay any tax at all for anything but I also personally believe that some of our tax dollars do something for us...ie: Heath Care, how do you think it would be to be American making $25k a year, no health insurance and you and your wife/girlfriend are severely injured in a car wreck? You and I both know that a good number of "patients" under the currant legislation have no real medical need, that bugs me. Also bugging me are the supposed LP's...as far as I'm concerned their a big greedy farse. Now as Ian pointed out, they create a Co-op...please...they leave out 3 larger commercial growers...nope I see no corporate greed there.
 
Ian Bastage said:
Yes. Just like the fine print in the legal medical grow license. You are supposed to only buy seeds or clones from the LPs. Very difficult to ever enforce but they wanted it on the books.



Haha. He does talk. But it also took a government who would make the effort. I don’t know if you watched any of the hearings, but one Liberal did make a comment to an opposing Conservative that they would have the opportunity to re-criminalize it once they got back in power . . .
Click to expand...

I've been relying on you and this thread to keep me updated...lol...seriously I've only watched bits and pieces...your last sentence is a true shame isn't it!...why do we want to be American and flip flop every time we have a party in power change. I've talked to, I'm sure you have too, people who are not pot people but they still have no issue with its legalization.
 
Back
Top Bottom