Comments

Load 19 of 19 older comments
  • tirob: knobmaker: Well, this is what happens when you regulate the sale of a vegetable as if it were plutonium.

    If cannabis is a vegetable, so is the opium poppy.

    knobmaker:

    What the government did, in their usual greed, was to try to replace the illegality surcharge with a bureaucratic surcharge-- taxes-- instead of just letting the stuff find its natural price.  So they set it up so they couldn't compete against the illegal market-- which was already very well developed in Canada.

    Did you think that the government would go into the business of overseeing the trade in weed without taking a cut in taxes?  You do know that the officials who are responsible for regulating the production and sale of it need to be paid salaries, don't you?

    You're also forgetting that people who legally sell weed from stores need to rent space, obtain licenses, and pay their help.  All of which things add to the price of the merchandise they sell.  Street dealers don't need to do any of those things, which brings down the price of their wares--which are the same crap that's for sale in the stores--to a level far below what legal retailers charge.


    Weed-bros: "legalize it, regulate it, tax it. It'll be great for the economy."
    *Government regulates it, taxes it.*
    Weed-bros: no, not like that.
  • My guess is there's a whole lotta of MBAs and other useless suits wrecking the joint.
  • jimpapa: I'm confused.
    Net sales for quarter were 50 million.
    And they reported a loss of 1 billion.

    How do you lose 1000 million dollars and only have 50 million in sales.

    Are they high?


    Capital costs.
  • jimpapa: I'm confused.
    Net sales for quarter were 50 million.
    And they reported a loss of 1 billion.

    How do you lose 1000 million dollars and only have 50 million in sales.

    Are they high?


    Their CFO Gutter would like a word...

    y.yarn.coView Full Size
  • And that's why I weed is so cheap
    Passing their losses on to the consumer
  • jayphat: tirob: knobmaker: Well, this is what happens when you regulate the sale of a vegetable as if it were plutonium.

    If cannabis is a vegetable, so is the opium poppy.

    knobmaker:

    What the government did, in their usual greed, was to try to replace the illegality surcharge with a bureaucratic surcharge-- taxes-- instead of just letting the stuff find its natural price.  So they set it up so they couldn't compete against the illegal market-- which was already very well developed in Canada.

    Did you think that the government would go into the business of overseeing the trade in weed without taking a cut in taxes?  You do know that the officials who are responsible for regulating the production and sale of it need to be paid salaries, don't you?

    You're also forgetting that people who legally sell weed from stores need to rent space, obtain licenses, and pay their help.  All of which things add to the price of the merchandise they sell.  Street dealers don't need to do any of those things, which brings down the price of their wares--which are the same crap that's for sale in the stores--to a level far below what legal retailers charge.

    Weed-bros: "legalize it, regulate it, tax it. It'll be great for the economy."
    *Government regulates it, taxes it.*
    Weed-bros: no, not like that.


    Exactly. Government still hasn't truly legalized it.
  • #1 the mob and cartels were created by prohibition. #2 the artificially high price of marijuana right now is the main cause of the black market. #3 cannabis has NEVER killed ANYONE.

    Don't listen to tirob, he lies saying things like: "The most marketable stuff is grown in greenhouses and is highly processed before it goes to market" and thinks his meth addicted friend was driven to murder because of marijuana. His knowledge of cannabis is so limited that he says he doesn't know if alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis and when there is zero evidence cannabis has ever killed someone and evidence aspirin has killed, he says, "In the absence of that comparative scientific evidence I asked for, however, I remain unconvinced that weed is less dangerous than aspirin." He has said: "I haven't gone into a McDonalds in ~fifteen years, but I still wouldn't vouch for weed's comparative safety against the highly processed food that's sold in their restaurants." He thinks cannabis is worse than diabetes!

    He also thinks tobacco is better for us than cannabis:
    cryptozoophiliac: "Hemp was a staple commodity that built America"
    tirob: "So was tobacco; even more so, in fact."
    johnphantom: "Prove it."
    And all he had to say to that was:
    tirob: "https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/tobacco-in-colonial-virginia/"

    He has said about a pot store robbery: "That is, were they out for money or out to get high?  Because if it was the latter, weed must be a pretty powerful drug if people are willing to kill to obtain it."

    He wants to put people in prison for a having a natural plant, and is racist because he doesn't think the judicial system is biased against people of color. Here he is advocating for the black market: "If you're as concerned about the small number of Blacks in the legal weed trade as you say you are, why don't you organize a boycott of legal weed until the "industry" becomes more racially diverse?"

    When asked to explain my statement and well known fact, "prohibition created the mob and cartels" he says: "We could argue until next week about what created the mob and the cartels." < this is how much he tries to spin things.

    He has said, "Weed will still be garbage whether I post here or not." and, "I don't care for weed.  It's garbage." tirob just doesn't want you to enjoy yourself, is what it comes down to: "Putting out a substance whose many nonmedical users ingest it solely for the purpose of f**king themselves up is nothing to be proud of, chum."

    trerro wrote, "Also, that 'drugs' are not separate from 'alcohol' - alcohol is a recreational drug. So is caffeine for that matter. Also, that pot is less dangerous than alcohol, and nicotine, especially the smoked variety, is far more dangerous than either of them." to which tirob replied: "According to whom?"

    Facts:

    https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
    An estimated 95,000 people (approximately 68,000 men and 27,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually,15 making alcohol the third-leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

    https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol
    Key facts. Worldwide, 3 million deaths every year result from harmful use of alcohol, this represent 5.3 % of all deaths. The harmful use of alcohol is a causal factor in more than 200 disease and injury conditions

    The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425742/
    By contrast, a recent systematic review informed by epidemiological data did not report a statistically significant association between cannabis use and mortality (Calabria et al., 2010)

    tirob said, "...the oft-heard claims that weed is 'medicine.'" and "It's almost as if the entire concept of "medical" weed is, like, you know, quackery." In response, officially from the government about how cannabis fights cancer:

    https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq

    Antitumor Effects
    One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo.[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]

    Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.[9-12] Two reviews summarize the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.[13,14] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. For example, these compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats, while they protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[9]

    The effects of delta-9-THC and a synthetic agonist of the CB2 receptor were investigated in HCC.[15] Both agents reduced the viability of HCC cells in vitro and demonstrated antitumor effects in HCC subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice. The investigations documented that the anti-HCC effects are mediated by way of the CB2 receptor. Similar to findings in glioma cells, the cannabinoids were shown to trigger cell death through stimulation of an endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway that activates autophagy and promotes apoptosis. Other investigations have confirmed that CB1 and CB2 receptors may be potential targets in non-small cell lung carcinoma [16] and breast cancer.[17]

    An in vitro study of the effect of CBD on programmed cell death in breast cancer cell lines found that CBD induced programmed cell death, independent of the CB1, CB2, or vanilloid receptors. CBD inhibited the survival of both estrogen receptor-positive and estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer cell lines, inducing apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner while having little effect on nontumorigenic mammary cells.[18] Other studies have also shown the antitumor effect of cannabinoids (i.e., CBD and THC) in preclinical models of breast cancer.[19,20]

    CBD has also been demonstrated to exert a chemopreventive effect in a mouse model of colon cancer.[21] In this experimental system, azoxymethane increased premalignant and malignant lesions in the mouse colon. Animals treated with azoxymethane and CBD concurrently were protected from developing premalignant and malignant lesions. In in vitro experiments involving colorectal cancer cell lines, the investigators found that CBD protected DNA from oxidative damage, increased endocannabinoid levels, and reduced cell proliferation. In a subsequent study, the investigators found that the antiproliferative effect of CBD was counteracted by selective CB1 but not CB2 receptor antagonists, suggesting an involvement of CB1 receptors.[22]

    Another investigation into the antitumor effects of CBD examined the role of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1).[12] ICAM-1 expression in tumor cells has been reported to be negatively correlated with cancer metastasis. In lung cancer cell lines, CBD upregulated ICAM-1, leading to decreased cancer cell invasiveness.

    In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines.[23] Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects. However, research with immunocompetent murine tumor models has demonstrated immunosuppression and enhanced tumor growth in mice treated with THC.[24,25]

    In addition, both plant-derived and endogenous cannabinoids have been studied for anti-inflammatory effects. A mouse study demonstrated that endogenous cannabinoid system signaling is likely to provide intrinsic protection against colonic inflammation.[26] As a result, a hypothesis that phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids may be useful in the risk reduction and treatment of colorectal cancer has been developed.[27-30]

    CBD may also enhance uptake of cytotoxic drugs into malignant cells. Activation of transient receptor potential vanilloid type 2 (TRPV2) has been shown to inhibit proliferation of human glioblastoma multiforme cells and overcome resistance to the chemotherapy agent carmustine. [31] One study showed that coadministration of THC and CBD over single-agent usage had greater antiproliferative activity in an in vitro study with multiple human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines.[32] In an in vitro model, CBD increased TRPV2 activation and increased uptake of cytotoxic drugs, leading to apoptosis of glioma cells without affecting normal human astrocytes. This suggests that coadministration of CBD with cytotoxic agents may increase drug uptake and potentiate cell death in human glioma cells. Also, CBD together with THC may enhance the antitumor activity of classic chemotherapeutic drugs such as temozolomide in some mouse models of cancer.[13,33] A meta-analysis of 34 in vitro and in vivo studies of cannabinoids in glioma reported that all but one study confirmed that cannabinoids selectively kill tumor cells.[34]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/

    In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke.
  • common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: common sense is an oxymoron:

    And you're "forgetting" that you have already conceded that dispensaries have all but wiped out the black market for cannabis in Oregon despite both the sin tax and those overhead costs. That was from one of your cherry-picked authorities on the subject, IIRC.

    You mean weed stores.  Dispensaries are places where you get medicine for free or at nominal cost, such as the pharmacy where I got my Covid booster.

    I have since found a newer source according to which ~half of all weed sales in Oregon in 2020 were on the black market.

    https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/01/13/marijuana-is-legal-in-nevada-but-illegal-market-is-still-huge-officials-say/

    "More than half of marijuana sales in Oregon and Washington were illegal last year."

    If you have data that you believe to be newer or more accurate, I'd be interested in seeing them.

    Newer or more accurate than what? That statement is both undated and unattributed.

    If you have data, as opposed to "data," I'd be interested in seeing it.


    The statement is dated January 13, 2021.  It is attributed to the writer of that article, who is a journalist who wrote about black market weed in the western states.  Whom I suspect to be a more reliable source than the weed industry spokesperson who claimed that the illicit share of the internal weed market in Oregon is 20 percent, or whatever that figure was, in that "cherry picked" article you reference.

    If you think the figures are off, find me another source.  Because I'm not buying the continuous, tiresome appeals to your own authority that you make here.

    common sense is an oxymoron: jayphat:

    Weed-bros: "legalize it, regulate it, tax it. It'll be great for the economy."
    *Government regulates it, taxes it.*
    Weed-bros: no, not like that.

    Exactly. Government still hasn't truly legalized it.


    Speaking of those continuing appeals.

    The trade in weed is legalized everywhere in Canada.  And the local legal distributors still can't turn a profit if TFA is any indication, or at least they can't do so according to the sets of books that they show the taxing authorities.
  • I only buy from the provincial store. I like being able to choose what kind of high im getting.
    My old dealer had nothing but couch lock sh*t. I hate couch lock.
    Shark shock and great white shark.
  • tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: common sense is an oxymoron:

    And you're "forgetting" that you have already conceded that dispensaries have all but wiped out the black market for cannabis in Oregon despite both the sin tax and those overhead costs. That was from one of your cherry-picked authorities on the subject, IIRC.

    You mean weed stores.  Dispensaries are places where you get medicine for free or at nominal cost, such as the pharmacy where I got my Covid booster.

    I have since found a newer source according to which ~half of all weed sales in Oregon in 2020 were on the black market.

    https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/01/13/marijuana-is-legal-in-nevada-but-illegal-market-is-still-huge-officials-say/

    "More than half of marijuana sales in Oregon and Washington were illegal last year."

    If you have data that you believe to be newer or more accurate, I'd be interested in seeing them.

    Newer or more accurate than what? That statement is both undated and unattributed.

    If you have data, as opposed to "data," I'd be interested in seeing it.

    The statement is dated January 13, 2021.  It is attributed to the writer of that article, who is a journalist who wrote about black market weed in the western states.  Whom I suspect to be a more reliable source than the weed industry spokesperson who claimed that the illicit share of the internal weed market in Oregon is 20 percent, or whatever that figure was, in that "cherry picked" article you reference.

    If you think the figures are off, find me another source.  Because I'm not buying the continuous, tiresome appeals to your own authority that you make here.


    The article is dated. The statement is not. And without some sort of attribution by the writer, there's no way to tell whether that statement came from a reliable source or from a monkey that flew out of the writer's ass, because even experts have ass monkeys. Which is what the "appeal" to authority" fallacy is all about, your ongoing lack of comprehension notwithstanding.

    tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: jayphat:

    Weed-bros: "legalize it, regulate it, tax it. It'll be great for the economy."
    *Government regulates it, taxes it.*
    Weed-bros: no, not like that.

    Exactly. Government still hasn't truly legalized it.

    Speaking of those continuing appeals.

    The trade in weed is legalized everywhere in Canada.


    Have you ever made an honest comment in your life? As you well know, local and provincial governments have veto power over legal sales.
  • Nonpo: Yes subby, that's kind of their problem. The 15 year olds are out-competing them.


    Nah, it's just the 15-year-olds aren't stupid enough to spend over a billion CAD on a startup.
  • Those are the boneheads who set up in the West Edmonton Mall, but because of weird cannabis zoning laws they weren't allowed to have their store open directly to the mall so they rented out an entire other store, selling nothing as far as I could tell, that's just an entrance to their actual store. Of course the laws are bullshiat but they were still stupid enough to pay the highest rent imaginable for a store that saw little to no traffic for two years while their competitors raked in the dough.
  • common sense is an oxymoron:

    The article is dated etc.

    Spare me your considered opinions please.  Either you have a better source or you don't.  Put up or shut up.

    common sense is an oxymoron: As you well know, local and provincial governments have veto power over legal sales.


    The veto power you reference has not been exercised by any of the provinces.  Weed can be legally obtained even in areas where local governments do not permit sales by ordering the stuff online and having it delivered.  As I said,    (t)he trade in weed is legalized everywhere in Canada. To claim differently is--well--dishonest of you.
  • tirob: common sense is an oxymoron:

    The article is dated etc.

    Spare me your considered opinions please.  Either you have a better source or you don't.  Put up or shut up.


    Without either a date or an attribution (a matter of fact, not opinion), your source is ass monkeys all the way down. Any source with either a date or an attribution is a better source, including the one I referred to. As a reminder, that one was from an article which you cited, from a source whom you cited as an authority. I'd tell you to take your own advice but we both know you'll never shut up.

    tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: As you well know, local and provincial governments have veto power over legal sales.

    The veto power you reference has not been exercised by any of the provinces.  Weed can be legally obtained even in areas where local governments do not permit sales by ordering the stuff online and having it delivered.  As I said,    (t)he trade in weed is legalized everywhere in Canada. To claim differently is--well--dishonest of you.


    I'll  be sure to give your accusation the consideration it duly deserves coming from someone who's spent the last few years cherry-picking examples, ignoring or selectively editing inconvenient comments and citations (including your own), and in general avoiding rational discussion like a vampire avoids garlic.
  • Lexx: jimpapa: I'm confused.
    Net sales for quarter were 50 million.
    And they reported a loss of 1 billion.

    How do you lose 1000 million dollars and only have 50 million in sales.

    Are they high?

    Capital costs.


    Yeah plenty of people must've done pretty well for themselves here... The packaging companies, builders, realtors, landlords, consultants... A lot of people got paid that billion dollars. Seems like somebody got scammed but good chance it wasn't the people calling the shots.
  • knobmaker: Well, this is what happens when you regulate the sale of a vegetable as if it were plutonium.

    What the government did, in their usual greed, was to try to replace the illegality surcharge with a bureaucratic surcharge-- taxes-- instead of just letting the stuff find its natural price.  So they set it up so they couldn't compete against the illegal market-- which was already very well developed in Canada.


    Got my medical licence here in VA back in Dec 2020, due to the shockingly high prices ($75 for 3.5gm) - I almost immediately looked into growing my own. My first harvest was two weeks after we were allowed to grow up to 4 plants legally.

    In the past ~14 months, I have had 4 harvests, with my most recent producing 1.25 lbs for 6 smaller autoflower plants.

    Growing is not the hard part, it is harvesting, drying, and curing well.

    I get there is an initial expense to this, but not to the degree that the the local dispensaries charge. Yeah, I can drive to DC, but I would just rather grow.

    Less than $1,000 got me a huge tent, grow lights, air handling, air filtration, and more seeds than I know what to do with.

    For those with space and who care to save money, legally growing is a delightful alternative.
  • common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: common sense is an oxymoron:

    The article is dated etc.

    Spare me your considered opinions please.  Either you have a better source or you don't.  Put up or shut up.

    Without either a date or an attribution (a matter of fact, not opinion), your source is ass monkeys all the way down.


    In your considered judgment.

    common sense is an oxymoron: Any source with either a date or an attribution is a better source, including the one I referred to.


    As I recall, the person responsible for the source you refer to was this fellow:

    https://thecannabisindustry.org/staff/whitney-beau/

    Whose paychecks are made out by weed peddlers, and not by the publisher of a newspaper.  So maybe.

    common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: As you well know, local and provincial governments have veto power over legal sales.

    The veto power you reference has not been exercised by any of the provinces.  Weed can be legally obtained even in areas where local governments do not permit sales by ordering the stuff online and having it delivered.  As I said,    (t)he trade in weed is legalized everywhere in Canada. To claim differently is--well--dishonest of you.

    I'll  be sure to give your [meow!  Meow meow meow!  Hiss!  Meow!]


    You got caught talking through your hat.  Own it.
  • This has to be some sort of record for a business that should be a cash cow and doesn't have "Trump" in its name.
  • tirob: knobmaker: Well, this is what happens when you regulate the sale of a vegetable as if it were plutonium.

    If cannabis is a vegetable, so is the opium poppy.

    knobmaker:

    What the government did, in their usual greed, was to try to replace the illegality surcharge with a bureaucratic surcharge-- taxes-- instead of just letting the stuff find its natural price.  So they set it up so they couldn't compete against the illegal market-- which was already very well developed in Canada.

    Did you think that the government would go into the business of overseeing the trade in weed without taking a cut in taxes?  You do know that the officials who are responsible for regulating the production and sale of it need to be paid salaries, don't you?

    You're also forgetting that people who legally sell weed from stores need to rent space, obtain licenses, and pay their help.  All of which things add to the price of the merchandise they sell.  Street dealers don't need to do any of those things, which brings down the price of their wares--which are the same crap that's for sale in the stores--to a level far below what legal retailers charge.


    Bud cannabis IS a vegetable, opium is a derived plant product, by definition. Thanks for playing.
  • rdyb: Lexx: jimpapa: I'm confused.
    Net sales for quarter were 50 million.
    And they reported a loss of 1 billion.

    How do you lose 1000 million dollars and only have 50 million in sales.

    Are they high?

    Capital costs.

    Yeah plenty of people must've done pretty well for themselves here... The packaging companies, builders, realtors, landlords, consultants... A lot of people got paid that billion dollars. Seems like somebody got scammed but good chance it wasn't the people calling the shots.


    Those poor dope peddlers.
    /Ts n Ps
  • Mechanicum: tirob: knobmaker: Well, this is what happens when you regulate the sale of a vegetable as if it were plutonium.

    If cannabis is a vegetable, so is the opium poppy.

    Bud cannabis IS a vegetable, opium is a derived plant product, by definition. Thanks for playing.


    I was referring to the poppy itself, not the opium latex that's derived from it.  Read much?
  • tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: common sense is an oxymoron:

    The article is dated etc.

    Spare me your considered opinions please.  Either you have a better source or you don't.  Put up or shut up.

    Without either a date or an attribution (a matter of fact, not opinion), your source is ass monkeys all the way down.

    In your considered judgment.

    common sense is an oxymoron: Any source with either a date or an attribution is a better source, including the one I referred to.

    As I recall, the person responsible for the source you refer to was this fellow:

    https://thecannabisindustry.org/staff/whitney-beau/

    Whose paychecks are made out by weed peddlers, and not by the publisher of a newspaper.  So maybe.

    common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: As you well know, local and provincial governments have veto power over legal sales.

    The veto power you reference has not been exercised by any of the provinces.  Weed can be legally obtained even in areas where local governments do not permit sales by ordering the stuff online and having it delivered.  As I said,    (t)he trade in weed is legalized everywhere in Canada. To claim differently is--well--dishonest of you.

    I'll  be sure to give your [meow!  Meow meow meow!  Hiss!  Meow!] accusation the consideration it duly deserves coming from someone who's spent the last few years cherry-picking examples, ignoring or selectively editing inconvenient comments and citations (including your own), and in general avoiding rational discussion like a vampire avoids garlic.

    You got caught talking through your hat.  Own it.


    Say what?
  • common sense is an oxymoron:

    common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: As you well know, local and provincial governments have veto power over legal sales.

    The veto power you reference has not been exercised by any of the provinces.  Weed can be legally obtained even in areas where local governments do not permit sales by ordering the stuff online and having it delivered.  As I said,    (t)he trade in weed is legalized everywhere in Canada. To claim differently is--well--dishonest of you.

    I'll  be sure to give your [meow!  Meow meow meow!  Hiss!  Meow!]

    You got caught talking through your hat.  Own it.

    Say what?


    Say you claimed, inaccurately, that the Canadian    (g)overnment still hasn't truly legalized (weed),followed that up with the misleading statement that is reproduced above, and capped all by ignoring my factually accurate response to that misleading statement and instead blowing smoke in the form of a bunch of catty accusations.

    But I think you knew that.
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.