# Will Canada go to POT if it becomes legalized?



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Legalizing pot means federal and provincial taxes can be added to the sale of one gram of pot. Just like alcohol and tobacco products, both governments stand to collect a lot of revenue from the sales.

However, just like sale of alcohol, there are consequences that can result from improper decisions made.



> Drugs are present more often than alcohol in people killed in motor vehicle accidents, 25% more often, according to the most recent national data, Murie said.
> 
> “And the most popular drug found was marijuana,” he said.
> 
> ...


http://www.saultstar.com/2016/04/28/worries-surface-about-road-safety-when-pot-legalized

In the 3 US states that are selling it: 
1/8 1/4 1/2 1.0 oz. 
Store #1	$21	$42	$84	$160
Store #2	$37.5 $70	$125	$225 $225 (Avg) x 13% = $29 in taxes going to both gov'ts. 
Store #3	$20	$40	$80	$155
Store #4	$35	$70	$135	$270
Store #5	$45	$90	$150	$300 $300 x 13% = $39 in pure profits going to both governments


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The government collects a lot of money from sale of cigarettes I think it losses more then it collects from less productive workers such as
Off sick of both smokers & none smokers from 1st, 2nd & 3rd hand smoke, mind on next fix or sneaking out for a fix instead of on job resulting in loss of productivity for the country, Friction @ work place from smokers not working to full potential & none smokers having to breath in 3rd hand smoke. increase health costs. Distracted drivers on the highways as well as work place resulting in increase in accidents. Law enforcement costs, are a few of the added financial costs I will leave out the moral costs. Pot will also have a lot of the same added costs.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Umm, doesn't this arguement imply that no one is using marijuana right now? That there are no current deaths or extra costs currently because of its use?

I'm sorry, as a landlord and business owner I can tell you this stuff is in widespread use right now. As a sports fan, attending games, I always smell the distinct skunk smell. Rock concerts, yep. I've got kids in school...it's there too, and currently not generating any tax revenues. 

The stuff is everywhere, and used widely. Sure the legalization of it may make it more common, but it will also generate significantly more revenue than the pittance it currently does from search and seizure.

I'm always amazed at people who talk about the "added costs", as if we are not currently experiencing any costs associated with the problem. Heck, the police, medical, education system, businesses, etc. Are all currently experiencing added costs because of marijuana with all the revenues funding and supporting criminal behaviour, making it easier for them to fund their illegal activities.

What happened to the "rum runners" after prohibition ended? How many criminals either went out of business or lost power when they lost their source of income? What were the costs to society when liquor was illegal? You can't say there were none because it was illegal...

Anyone who reads history knows the costs to society went down after the repeal of prohibition.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> I'm always amazed at people who talk about the "added costs", as if we are not currently experiencing any costs associated with the problem. Heck, the police, medical, education system, businesses, etc. Are all currently experiencing added costs because of marijuana with all the revenues funding and supporting criminal behaviour, making it easier for them to fund their illegal activities.


So is it just the drug trade that recently has surfaced with gangland style murders (a few in Ottawa too) and the control of territory?...or.. just the addicts unable to pay their bill to the pushers when they come around to collect?
Every illegal activity has costs..whether it's in the hospitals due to shooting of the victim, the courts and if convicted the prisons to put perpretrators away for a while. The overall costs will always be higher than the bit of tax money collected from the sale of Pot . 

Just like consumption of alcohol, use of pot will have adverse effects on society for those that think they can drink and drive or smoke and drive. Either way the decision process gets affected and the consequences can be quite severe.




> What happened to the "rum runners" after prohibition ended? How many criminals either went out of business or lost power when they lost their source of income? What were the costs to society when liquor was illegal? You can't say there were none because it was illegal...
> 
> Anyone who reads history knows the costs to society went down after the repeal of prohibition.


Not sure what you mean with ^^^^? 
The rum runners were before my time, so I can't comment on the effects prohibition had on society back in the 30s.

WWII had a larger impact on the costs to society. Funny but we never hear about the national debt (or deficit) back then and how much our participation in the war cost us in terms of 1939 dollars.

There weren't as many vehicles on the road then as well.; Alcohol related health problems may not been as plentiful then
due to the smaller population.
Certainly the "smokes runners' are still active smuggling cigarettes from the US, and selling as "Indian Tobacco" does have an effect on gov't tax revenues on sale of tobacco, but even with the excise taxes and HST, it still does not pay for the cost to taxpayers for their healthcare in later years..emphysema, lung cancer etc..


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Well has control and taxing reduced the amount of drinkers and smokers? Nope, only thing that reduced smokers was cancer. Now we will have more cancer cases and drug cases because it is a gateway drug.

I am amazed that people cant enjoy anything with out having a drink or smoking a joint. 

Go and have a picnic in Stanley park and its a dopefest out there.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Recently the Ottawa city council was trying to find a safe supervised injection site. Most Ottawa residents/taxpayers are not in favour of this.
Too easy to turn it into another Vancouver, although it's already going in some places. Lots of tourists visit Ottawa, and the drug users could even go begging looking for cash handouts to feed their habits. 

Why encourage them with city approved injection sites? That will just backfire with more murders, overdose cases, and the
drug trade just feeding on these hopeless relics. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/supervised-injection-site-ottawa-council-1.3528572


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Umm, doesn't this arguement imply that no one is using marijuana right now? That there are no current deaths or extra costs currently because of its use?
> 
> .


 Guns might be a good example in Canada can not lawfully walk around with a gun where in the US in certain states people can walk around carrying a gun. Canada still has problems with death from guns compared to the US the number of deaths in Canada is small in comparison. Legalize pot & there will be more use of it resulting in more traffic deaths etc.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Alcohol and tobacco are legal and look how great that worked out! (Sarkylert).

The sad thing is if the activists get their way, by the time they find out they were wrong it will be too late to put the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Are you saying things were better during prohibition? People drank all the time, gangland murders over controlling territory (when did that last happen over rum?), police corruption...

Yes, there are issues with legalized alcohol and tobacco...but there were plenty of issue, some more serious, when they were illegal. Plus, there were no revenues to offset these costs.

Who would governments sue if we hadn't legalized tobacco? Billions of dollars have come out of the industry to offset the costs to society. When the last time any significant money came from drug dealers to offset their costs to society.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Legalizing pot is only a recognition of what a lot of people are already doing in private.

A law that is ignored by the people is a bad law.

Marijuana abuse is a health issue............not a criminal issue.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

It seems like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in the government except it's good all around with all that flow-through revenues and tax collection that comes with legalization,

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2016/04/30/medical-pot-shops-in-toronto-face-possible-crackdown.html *Medical pot shops in Toronto face possible crackdown
*
*Toronto’s licensing department is planning a crackdown on medical pot dispensaries operating without federal approval and in neighbourhoods not zoned industrial.
*



> The Queens of Cannabis owners wanted their bright and airy Bloor Street W. shop to have a “healing atmosphere” distinct from dozens of other marijuana dispensaries springing up, almost daily, across Toronto.
> 
> “We wanted it to be opening, friendly, welcoming. We wanted to take the stigma away from medical marijuana,” says co-owner Brandy Zuborg, *a government tax auditor-turned pot entrepreneur*. ...


 ... the irony.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Alcohol and tobacco are legal and look how great that worked out! (Sarkylert).
> 
> The sad thing is if the activists get their way, by the time they find out they were wrong it will be too late to put the genie back in the bottle.


Alcohol and tobacco are legal because prohibition would not be enforceable and just add more problems on top of the problems they cause by themselves. For the exact same reason marijuana should be legal.

Just A Guy already pointed out that there will not be a significant jump in pot related crimes such as driving under the influence because the people who do that are *already doing it*.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

carverman said:


> Not sure what you mean with ^^^^?
> The rum runners were before my time, so I can't comment on the effects prohibition had on society back in the 30s.


Seriously, you've never seen one "Al Capone" movie? O.K., let me give a short education.

Scenario 1 - Alcohol is Legal
Some people drink and drive and cause deaths

Scenario 2 - Alcohol is Illegal
Some people drink (illegally) and drive and cause deaths.
And gangs form to provide the illegal alcohol. And they have turf wars and innocent people are killed in the crossfire.
And huge amounts of money are spent on enforcing the prohibition.
And more violence between police and gangs, more innocent deaths.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Some people must prefer to relive the mistakes of others instead of learning from them. The problems of prohibition are well documented history, but the excuse of "I didn't do it, so it'll work this time" is pulled out.

How much money is spent on vice now? How many people are in prison because of it, how many people are killed every year in turf wars, how much does the illegality cost us now?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Are you saying things were better during prohibition? People drank all the time, gangland murders over controlling territory (when did that last happen over rum?), police corruption...
> 
> 
> Who would governments sue if we hadn't legalized tobacco? Billions of dollars have come out of the industry to offset the costs to society. When the last time any significant money came from drug dealers to offset their costs to society.


Yes, there are issues with legalized alcohol and tobacco...but there were plenty of issue, some more serious, when they were illegal. Plus, there were no revenues to offset these costs.
Read Booze by John Gray. So far as I know he is the only author to actually look up the statistics and the facts about prohibition rather than rely on old Untouchables reruns. The fact is liquor consumption under prohibition dropped away to almost nothing, even though you could legally buy liquor in Canada. The social effect were also entirely positive. He knew about this because his father was an alcoholic and the difference prohibition made to his family was like night and day. This always made him skeptical about claims that prohibition was a failure because it was anything but in his experience. So, he looked into the facts and found out he was right.

Prohibition changed the drinking habits of Canadians so much, that to this day we have not gone back to the per capita consumption of alcohol that was common in 1900.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So, history professors only watch the untouchables and the only person in the world to write accurately is John gray because he says what you want to hear.

First off Canada had no prohibition. In fact some of the wealth of west Vancouver was made from supplying the USA with rum.

Second, consumption is a choice (no I'm not saying alcoholics have a choice, I understand that, but even their first drink ever was probably a choice). The legalization of it has no bearing on me, for example, as I choose not to drink. I'll also choose not to use marijuana. It is the same choice for my kids. They have access to alcohol, I know for a fact they have access to marijuana (even though it's illegal), it's their choice, probably influenced more by example than the legality, if they try/use it or not.

There were alcoholics during prohibition, and the "official" consumption was far from zero.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Further, how many people were poisoned by "bathtub gin", ironically by their own government? The government put poison into industrial use alcohol to discourage it's consumption by the public. This, of course, didn't stop people (criminals) from using it and, poisoning people.

I'm sure, if you look hard enough, you can find a scholar like Gray who, from personal experience, can justify the "good" of any situation...on a micro scale, I'm sure there is someone who benefits from any situation (mass muder, stupid legislation, etc.). 

If you care to read some scholarly articles, you know peer reviewed as opposed to opinion...

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q...ved=0ahUKEwinhLW1trvMAhVS8mMKHTj4DMUQgQMIGDAA


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> ......
> First off Canada had no prohibition.
> .....


Not enyirely correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Canada


----------

