Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canadian Politics] No, You're Never Owning a Home

SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' CanuckRegistered User regular
Canadian Politics!

As of December, 2016!

Status: Liberal Majority, Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister


ozuwc58pd954.jpg

Opposition party status:

Conservatives: Interim Leader, Rona Ambrose. Leadership race in progress. Candidates range from Progressive Conservative to Holy Crap You Really Want to Be Hitler!

9lrr48hrrc5c.jpg

NDP: So they don't want Thomas Mulcair to be their leader anymore, but nobody else seems to want to be leader either... and actually I have no idea what's going on with the NDP right now. Mulcair for now it is!

t5ykyz9xgrnk.png

Everybody Else: Uh, the Bloc has an interim leader, and Liz May is still in Parliament for the Greens. So basically...

wgjx8g33u0hx.jpg


Current Government Projects
: Marijuana legalization in 2017, backing down from electoral reform (boo), thinking about maybe having a national drug plan someday, creating pipeline policy that neither side likes (does that mean it's good?), figuring out WTF to do about US relations and Trump (I presume).

mj572ay7ywaj.jpg

Provincial Status:

Premiers are angry about the environment and health care. I'm sure they're mad about transfer payments too. Alberta's governed by the NDP right now... will it last? BC's got an electon coming up in 2017. Ontario is not very fond of the Wynne Liberals, but the Conservatives keep electing the least likeable leaders possible. Quebec is busy watching the Denis Coderre Show. The prairies will get back to us when they thaw out in the spring. I tried to find out what's up in Atlantic Canada but all I got was stories about moose rescues and road washouts.

Territorial Status: Cold, with natural resources.

First Nations Status: Slightly less fucked-up than under Harper? Maybe?

TL;DR:

c2afatcav8go.jpg
dg1ygmjfgp5e.jpg
hrajw6t3q00x.jpg
vavqdgmkrnr9.jpg

Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
3DS Friend Code: 3823-8693-5976
Final Fantasy XIV: Neema Chelewae, Hyperion Server
SwashbucklerXX on
Nova_CMayabirdShadowenTubularLuggageTeriferinCaulk Bite 6InvectivusEl MuchoThe EnderLoisLane
«13456746

Posts

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Awful lack of territorial politics ITT.

    Anti-north bias!

    The Giant Mine continues to be a sore spot with something like 375,000 tons of arsenic needing permanent storage. The government rejected a proposal to drop territorial status and become a province. Climate Change is very real - it fucking rained in November in Yellowknife.

    Right now it's -25 or something, so not bad, but I'm expecting worse.

    Also, politics in the north is boooooring.

    Tube wrote: »
    No, I hate D&D more than the other subforums because it's more of a pain in my arse.
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    News from my neck of the woods:

    The plan to make a bike/hike path through the Pacific Rim National Park (you know, the place seen above where the PM is surfing) from the Feds doesn't actually link up with either of the neighbouring communities paths, putting small villages on to pay millions of dollars to finish it ... which they can't afford. So good news bicyclists and hikers, you'll only have to risk tourist and local vehicle traffic through the rainforest for several kilometers!

    Meanwhile, the highway leading to that big ass park (and our communities) recently developed a sinkhole and washed out, then was repaired to one dirt lane. At least the ladies they had out there by the lake flagging 24/7 were replaced by some lights and temporary barricades. Not to worry though, not much traffic should be coming through the snowy pass, because it may only be a few inches deep but BC wet as fuck snow turns our roads into Slip N Slides, so for goodness sake, don't think All Seasons will do the trick (yet many in BC do) because Winter tires are better in the rain too, ya jokers.

    And the local Coast Guard station remains shuttered, that's going to bite us in the ass, definitely makes a lot of people nervous about more tanker traffic and fishery poaching in the area, as well as treacherous waters well known in the past for sinking ships. Wonder how the Libs plan to get remote communities (mostly first nations) to be prepared to help on when another ship sinks will work out given how their other plans seem to be missing some key elements in the implementation and execution.

    On such matters and more, seems our NDP MP Gord Johns is on the ball making it known in Ottawa the Liberal's need to step up their game. Haven't really heard any complaints about the guy so far. Let me know if you do though, lil wary after the last guy we had for an MP from the Cons, that supposed "Dr" was ... not helpful even while he and the Cons made sure get credit for things like a bunch of road work with all their accompanying road signs.

    steam_sig.png
    TubularLuggage
  • SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Awful lack of territorial politics ITT.

    Anti-north bias!

    The Giant Mine continues to be a sore spot with something like 375,000 tons of arsenic needing permanent storage. The government rejected a proposal to drop territorial status and become a province. Climate Change is very real - it fucking rained in November in Yellowknife.

    Right now it's -25 or something, so not bad, but I'm expecting worse.

    Also, politics in the north is boooooring.

    Fixed!

    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
    3DS Friend Code: 3823-8693-5976
    Final Fantasy XIV: Neema Chelewae, Hyperion Server
    Nova_C
  • SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    News from my neck of the woods:

    The plan to make a bike/hike path through the Pacific Rim National Park (you know, the place seen above where the PM is surfing) from the Feds doesn't actually link up with either of the neighbouring communities paths, putting small villages on to pay millions of dollars to finish it ... which they can't afford. So good news bicyclists and hikers, you'll only have to risk tourist and local vehicle traffic through the rainforest for several kilometers!

    Meanwhile, the highway leading to that big ass park (and our communities) recently developed a sinkhole and washed out, then was repaired to one dirt lane. At least the ladies they had out there by the lake flagging 24/7 were replaced by some lights and temporary barricades. Not to worry though, not much traffic should be coming through the snowy pass, because it may only be a few inches deep but BC wet as fuck snow turns our roads into Slip N Slides, so for goodness sake, don't think All Seasons will do the trick (yet many in BC do) because Winter tires are better in the rain too, ya jokers.

    And the local Coast Guard station remains shuttered, that's going to bite us in the ass, definitely makes a lot of people nervous about more tanker traffic and fishery poaching in the area, as well as treacherous waters well known in the past for sinking ships. Wonder how the Libs plan to get remote communities (mostly first nations) to be prepared to help on when another ship sinks will work out given how their other plans seem to be missing some key elements in the implementation and execution.

    On such matters and more, seems our NDP MP Gord Johns is on the ball making it known in Ottawa the Liberal's need to step up their game. Haven't really heard any complaints about the guy so far. Let me know if you do though, lil wary after the last guy we had for an MP from the Cons, that supposed "Dr" was ... not helpful even while he and the Cons made sure get credit for things like a bunch of road work with all their accompanying road signs.

    I have to say, living in BC for the first time this year has been an education for me. The infrastructure needs are so vast and so underfunded here, it really feels like one of the last North American frontiers once you get north of Whistler. And in the heavily populated areas, the drug crisis and homelessness crisis is so out of control, it's insane. Not that Ontario doesn't have many similar problems, but Toronto The Good is very skilled at sweeping them under the rug and hiding them away. Around here it seems very out in the open.

    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
    3DS Friend Code: 3823-8693-5976
    Final Fantasy XIV: Neema Chelewae, Hyperion Server
    Oats
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Canadian Politics!
    I tried to find out what's up in Atlantic Canada but all I got was stories about moose rescues and road washouts.

    That's ... Well, actually not that far off. :P

    I legitimately love how dull and moderate our politics are out this way.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    News from my neck of the woods:

    The plan to make a bike/hike path through the Pacific Rim National Park (you know, the place seen above where the PM is surfing) from the Feds doesn't actually link up with either of the neighbouring communities paths, putting small villages on to pay millions of dollars to finish it ... which they can't afford. So good news bicyclists and hikers, you'll only have to risk tourist and local vehicle traffic through the rainforest for several kilometers!

    Meanwhile, the highway leading to that big ass park (and our communities) recently developed a sinkhole and washed out, then was repaired to one dirt lane. At least the ladies they had out there by the lake flagging 24/7 were replaced by some lights and temporary barricades. Not to worry though, not much traffic should be coming through the snowy pass, because it may only be a few inches deep but BC wet as fuck snow turns our roads into Slip N Slides, so for goodness sake, don't think All Seasons will do the trick (yet many in BC do) because Winter tires are better in the rain too, ya jokers.

    And the local Coast Guard station remains shuttered, that's going to bite us in the ass, definitely makes a lot of people nervous about more tanker traffic and fishery poaching in the area, as well as treacherous waters well known in the past for sinking ships. Wonder how the Libs plan to get remote communities (mostly first nations) to be prepared to help on when another ship sinks will work out given how their other plans seem to be missing some key elements in the implementation and execution.

    On such matters and more, seems our NDP MP Gord Johns is on the ball making it known in Ottawa the Liberal's need to step up their game. Haven't really heard any complaints about the guy so far. Let me know if you do though, lil wary after the last guy we had for an MP from the Cons, that supposed "Dr" was ... not helpful even while he and the Cons made sure get credit for things like a bunch of road work with all their accompanying road signs.

    That's some rough stuff. I sincerely hope more attention gets paid and things get better where you're at.

    TubularLuggage on
    Caulk Bite 6Charmy
  • VanderbrentVanderbrent Registered User regular
    In other news,
    Bon cop bad cop 2 trailer is out(!!!!!!!!!):


    Oats21stCenturySwashbucklerXXLaOsRichyWiseManTobesCelloShadowenJacobyThe Ender
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Are you garbage? Because you belong in my room!Registered User regular
    In other news,
    Bon cop bad cop 2 trailer is out(!!!!!!!!!):


    Oh my!

    I loved the first one!

    OatsThe Ender
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    This is some pretty positive news:
    Health Minister Jane Philpott and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale announced a series of legislative changes today that will speed up the process for opening safe injection sites.

    "This is a crisis that is complex, it's multi-dimensional and as we make this announcement this afternoon, the people who are foremost in my mind are family members. Mothers in particular, to whom I've spoken, who've told me the stories of their sons or daughters who've lost their lives due to opioid overdoes," said Philpott.

    "Today, the government of Canada is following up on commitments that we made," she added.

    The government said in a statement that the existing National Anti-Drug Strategy would be replaced with a "more balanced approach" called the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy. The new strategy "restores harm reduction as a core pillar of Canada's drug policy."

    That new strategy would also put drug policy back under the Ministry of Health and away from the justice department.

    They're also repealing the 26 application criteria needed under the previous Act in order to open a safe injection site, replacing them with:

    * Demonstration of the need for such a site to exist.
    * Demonstration of appropriate consultation of the community.
    * Presentation of evidence on whether the site will impact crime in the community.
    * Ensuring regulatory systems are in place.
    * Site proponents will need to prove appropriate resources are in place.

    The change from Justice to Health, though, is a needed reframing of the issue in terms of priorities and how they plan to address the problem.

    Aegis on
    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +4/1d8+2 | Spell +4/DC 12
    OatsmrondeauEtiowsaBouwsTshrykeNova_CShadowenInfidelTubularLuggageJacobyCanadianWolverineCaulk Bite 6Gnome-InterruptusCharmyThe EnderUnlucky
  • BouwsTBouwsT Cozy up by the fire... Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    This is some pretty positive news:
    Health Minister Jane Philpott and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale announced a series of legislative changes today that will speed up the process for opening safe injection sites.

    "This is a crisis that is complex, it's multi-dimensional and as we make this announcement this afternoon, the people who are foremost in my mind are family members. Mothers in particular, to whom I've spoken, who've told me the stories of their sons or daughters who've lost their lives due to opioid overdoes," said Philpott.

    "Today, the government of Canada is following up on commitments that we made," she added.

    The government said in a statement that the existing National Anti-Drug Strategy would be replaced with a "more balanced approach" called the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy. The new strategy "restores harm reduction as a core pillar of Canada's drug policy."

    That new strategy would also put drug policy back under the Ministry of Health and away from the justice department.

    They're also repealing the 26 application criteria needed under the previous Act in order to open a safe injection site, replacing them with:

    * Demonstration of the need for such a site to exist.
    * Demonstration of appropriate consultation of the community.
    * Presentation of evidence on whether the site will impact crime in the community.
    * Ensuring regulatory systems are in place.
    * Site proponents will need to prove appropriate resources are in place.

    The change from Justice to Health, though, is a needed reframing of the issue in terms of priorities and how they plan to address the problem.

    Bolded made me smile openly at work.

    I shall be telling this with a sigh
    Somewhere ages and ages hence:
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.
    Nova_CShadowenTubularLuggageCaulk Bite 6RichyGnome-InterruptusUnlucky
  • FoomyFoomy Registered User regular
    "WAR" on drugs does shit all to help people or stop drug use. All your doing is filling prisons and fucking up people's lives who are already in a bad way.

    So this is some super good news.

    Steam Profile: FoomyFooms
    WiseManTobesShadowenDaimarBouwsTInfidelTubularLuggageJacobyCanadianWolverineOatsCaulk Bite 6AegisGnome-InterruptusPsykomaDisco11FencingsaxRichyThe EnderUnluckyDissociaterArdol
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    https://news.vice.com/story/canada-marijuana-task-force-recommends-retail-pot-sales-and-a-minimum-age-of-18

    If JT follows the advice given to him by the task force I will be pretty happy!

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    shrykeRichyTubularLuggageBouwsTGnome-InterruptusShadowenCaulk Bite 6
  • DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    The task force responsible for setting out the framework for weed legalization has released their report, cbc article with the full 112 page report is here:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalization-pot-task-force-1.3893876

    A quick read of the highlights is encouraging so far.

    steam_sig.png
    shrykeRichyTubularLuggageBouwsTGnome-InterruptusShadowenCaulk Bite 6
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Daimar wrote: »
    The task force responsible for setting out the framework for weed legalization has released their report, cbc article with the full 112 page report is here:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalization-pot-task-force-1.3893876

    A quick read of the highlights is encouraging so far.

    Apart from that weird plant size restriction it seems all pretty reasonable.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    Al_watShadowen
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66
    Origin ID: AIWatt (AI as in ai, not AL)
    BouwsTCaulk Bite 6
  • EntriechEntriech Registered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    That's public possession. Mostly seems like a way of distinguishing people selling outside the approved channels.

    Gamecenter/Gamertag/Steam ID/PSN: Entriech
    Guild Wars 2: Entriech.3507 | Scythe Gearsnap, Phlork, Irenic
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    Is there a difference between "personal possession" and what you possess in your home?

    PSN: AWATTT66
    Origin ID: AIWatt (AI as in ai, not AL)
  • RichyRichy http://torchlightmedia.netRegistered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
    BouwsTEtiowsashrykeJacobyThe EnderCaulk Bite 6
  • BouwsTBouwsT Cozy up by the fire... Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    I think that maybe having a public possession limit might be something to consider, but ya, if I can stack my house with 5 kegs and many liters of hard liquor in preparation for a Christmas party, where's the sense that a private citizen couldn't do the same with weed?

    I shall be telling this with a sigh
    Somewhere ages and ages hence:
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    some photos online of about what 30grams of weed looks like.. thats more weed than I have ever had on me at one time.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    BouwsT wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    I think that maybe having a public possession limit might be something to consider, but ya, if I can stack my house with 5 kegs and many liters of hard liquor in preparation for a Christmas party, where's the sense that a private citizen couldn't do the same with weed?

    That's a little over an ounce. It's not unreasonable to have more but it's still quite a bit of product.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    Al_wat
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    some photos online of about what 30grams of weed looks like.. thats more weed than I have ever had on me at one time.

    I picked up 1/4 pound once for a volume discount and split with some friends + camping. It was a cartoonishly large amount of green to have around and was terrified bringing that back to my house.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Disco11 wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    some photos online of about what 30grams of weed looks like.. thats more weed than I have ever had on me at one time.

    I picked up 1/4 pound once for a volume discount and split with some friends + camping. It was a cartoonishly large amount of green to have around and was terrified bringing that back to my house.

    Had a few friends who dealt back in the day, seeing a pound of weed was like mind boggling to me, then again I never really smoked that much when I did..


    christ that was 20 years ago...

    darkmayo on
  • DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    I think the 30 grams is so police have something to charge you with if they want to but will rarely be enforced. I think it is similar to the law in Alberta about cigarette possession that states it is illegal to have more than 1,000 cigarettes unless you are a cigarette wholesaler. That sounds like a lot, but it is 5 cartons of cigarettes which I'm sure a lot of people walk out of Costco with when they are stocking up.

    http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/tax_rebates/tobacco/tta2.html

    steam_sig.png
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    some photos online of about what 30grams of weed looks like.. thats more weed than I have ever had on me at one time.

    I picked up 1/4 pound once for a volume discount and split with some friends + camping. It was a cartoonishly large amount of green to have around and was terrified bringing that back to my house.

    Had a few friends who dealt back in the day, seeing a pound of weed was like mind boggling to me, then again I never really smoked that much when I did..


    christ that was 20 years ago...

    I vape and it's usually .2 - .3 grams. An ounce lasts a really long time ....

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • BouwsTBouwsT Cozy up by the fire... Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Daimar wrote: »
    I think the 30 grams is so police have something to charge you with if they want to but will rarely be enforced. I think it is similar to the law in Alberta about cigarette possession that states it is illegal to have more than 1,000 cigarettes unless you are a cigarette wholesaler. That sounds like a lot, but it is 5 cartons of cigarettes which I'm sure a lot of people walk out of Costco with when they are stocking up.

    http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/tax_rebates/tobacco/tta2.html

    This is a really good point, and I hadn't see this number. Thanks!

    Relevant passage that I found:

    "Offences under the Procedures Regulation

    In certain circumstances, as an alternative to the above penalties that could be imposed by the court, officers may issue violation tickets under the Procedures Regulation:


    $500 for a consumer not paying tax on purchases of tobacco.

    for unauthorized possession or purchase of black stock:

    $250, for 400 cigarettes or grams of tobacco or less, or

    $500, for between 400 and 1000 cigarettes or grams of tobacco.

    $250 for unauthorized possession of between 200 and 1200 cigarettes or grams of tobacco not marked for tax-paid sale in Alberta.

    $500 for unauthorized sale of black stock by an exempt sale retailer.

    $1000 for possession of between 1000 and 3000 cigarettes or grams of tobacco."

    Edit: Bolded for clarity.

    BouwsT on
    I shall be telling this with a sigh
    Somewhere ages and ages hence:
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.
  • hippofanthippofant Chu. Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    some photos online of about what 30grams of weed looks like.. thats more weed than I have ever had on me at one time.

    I picked up 1/4 pound once for a volume discount and split with some friends + camping. It was a cartoonishly large amount of green to have around and was terrified bringing that back to my house.

    That... uh... that would technically count as trafficking, no?

  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    Reading the actual document provides some clarity about my earlier questions:
    The amount of non-medical cannabis that individuals are permitted to carry on their person in a public place should be limited to 30 grams.

    Also in the section talking about 100cm height limits, it doesn't say anything about "fire safety" being the reason. Maybe just to control the amount produced?

    PSN: AWATTT66
    Origin ID: AIWatt (AI as in ai, not AL)
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    yeah 100cm for "fire risks" ?

    Not seeing how that creates more of a fire risk.

    Also I'm disappointed to see "a personal possession limit of 30 grams." Is there a limit on how much alcohol you can own? If you chose to grow within their advised limits you could easily find yourself with more than 30 grams at a time.

    I'm still happy for legalization though. At the end of the day I'll take what I can get.

    I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they can enforce a personal possession limit. They can limit how much you buy at one time, sure, but they can't stop you from buying more at another time, so that's pointless. They can't search your stuff willy-nilly to see if you have more than 30 grams. And I'd be surprised if they start giving our search warrants for suspicions of having 31 grams.

    So I'm guessing the 30 grams thing is actually another law to slap on people caught drug trafficking. Someone trafficking weed is normally going to have more than 30 grams of it at one time, and they'll be found out while being arrested in a drug bust. Then it could also be a minor infraction used as a bargaining chip with small-time dealers to get them to turn on bigger fishes.

    some photos online of about what 30grams of weed looks like.. thats more weed than I have ever had on me at one time.

    I picked up 1/4 pound once for a volume discount and split with some friends + camping. It was a cartoonishly large amount of green to have around and was terrified bringing that back to my house.

    That... uh... that would technically count as trafficking, no?

    Yes. Or if you want to get technical it's possession with intent to distribute.

    Was kinda of a last minute thing and I was terrified. Was a very fun camping trip after though!

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    In public though. Just don't carry it around on the street and you're fine

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    Disco11shrykeCaulk Bite 6
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Reading the actual document provides some clarity about my earlier questions:
    The amount of non-medical cannabis that individuals are permitted to carry on their person in a public place should be limited to 30 grams.

    Also in the section talking about 100cm height limits, it doesn't say anything about "fire safety" being the reason. Maybe just to control the amount produced?

    As a restriction for "in public" only, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

    Al_wat
  • SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    I just hope they remember to stick pot in with cigarettes for non-smoking area (restaurants, building entrances, bars, etc.) laws. Seems obvious, but considering Ontario forgot to add same-sex divorce laws in when they legalized same-sex marriage, these things get forgotten. I'm totally pro-legalization but as a non-anything-smoker, I don't want to end up breathing it in and smelling like it all the time.

    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
    3DS Friend Code: 3823-8693-5976
    Final Fantasy XIV: Neema Chelewae, Hyperion Server
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    Alan Thicke has died.

    2016 not done yet.

    Gnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6Jacoby
  • LaOsLaOs Registered User regular
    Why do they need same-sex divorce laws? Aren't divorce laws just applied to marriages in general? And didn't same-sex marriage just allow for same-sex couples to take advantage of the legal contract of marriage that already existed (essentially)? Ontario really created a whole new entity?

    Caulk Bite 6
  • hippofanthippofant Chu. Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    LaOs wrote: »
    Why do they need same-sex divorce laws? Aren't divorce laws just applied to marriages in general? And didn't same-sex marriage just allow for same-sex couples to take advantage of the legal contract of marriage that already existed (essentially)? Ontario really created a whole new entity?

    The federal Divorce Act - note federal, not provincial - referred to things like husband and wife, man and woman, etc..

    Basically, remember that divorce is a relatively new phenomenon compared to marriage, so divorce laws were written up separately from marriage laws. So when we amended the Marriage Act, nobody remembered to go check the Divorce Act, and as it turns out, stuff that was defined in the Marriage Act was also defined separately in the Divorce Act and they stopped matching up properly, which meant that some couples could get married but not divorced, since they fell under the scope of one act but not the other.


    What Ontario is doing is revising child custody laws, which are provincial jurisdiction, to allow for non-traditional families with the All Families Are Equal Act. So laws won't refer to mother and father any more. And, IIRC, children's documents will allow listing of up to 4 parents, etc..

    hippofant on
    Fencingsax
  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    I just hope they remember to stick pot in with cigarettes for non-smoking area (restaurants, building entrances, bars, etc.) laws. Seems obvious, but considering Ontario forgot to add same-sex divorce laws in when they legalized same-sex marriage, these things get forgotten. I'm totally pro-legalization but as a non-anything-smoker, I don't want to end up breathing it in and smelling like it all the time.

    Given that most people I've seen vaping in public around here treat it the same as smoking (they go to the designated areas) I don't think it's a big issue? Also, putting another voice on the confusion of why they'd need to specify same-sex divorce in the same-sex marriage laws.

  • SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    To clear up my comment about Ontario and same-sex marriages: SS marriage was legal in Ontario before it was federally, as of June 2003. In 2004 a lesbian couple decided to get divorced, and everybody realized that the language in the Divorce Act was heterosexual marriage-specific, so that act also had to be declared unconstitutional so that same sex couples could also get divorced.

    Wikipedia actually covers it pretty well.

    Same-sex marriage became legal nationwide in 2005. Edit: And the Divorce Act had already been fixed by that point, since it's federal but had to be fixed for that Ontario couple. (Thanks Hippofant for helping me clear that point up.)

    SwashbucklerXX on
    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
    3DS Friend Code: 3823-8693-5976
    Final Fantasy XIV: Neema Chelewae, Hyperion Server
    Caulk Bite 6Gnome-Interruptus
  • hippofanthippofant Chu. Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    I just hope they remember to stick pot in with cigarettes for non-smoking area (restaurants, building entrances, bars, etc.) laws. Seems obvious, but considering Ontario forgot to add same-sex divorce laws in when they legalized same-sex marriage, these things get forgotten. I'm totally pro-legalization but as a non-anything-smoker, I don't want to end up breathing it in and smelling like it all the time.

    Given that most people I've seen vaping in public around here treat it the same as smoking (they go to the designated areas) I don't think it's a big issue? Also, putting another voice on the confusion of why they'd need to specify same-sex divorce in the same-sex marriage laws.

    Divorce is federal.
    Marriage is provincial/federal. (Who and how is provincial, why and what is federal.)

    :rotate:
    91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

    26. Marriage and Divorce.

    92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

    12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.

    Probably a Quebec thing. :question:

    hippofant on
    Caulk Bite 6
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Woo, federalism jurisdictional disputes.
    hippofant wrote: »
    Probably a Quebec thing. :question:

    You are correct!

    Helpful journal article on the history of divorce and marriage in Canada with relation to the Divorce Act: pdf link here

    Brief summary: in the run-up to the BNA Act, objections were raised by Quebec during the Quebec Resolutions regarding giving the federal government jurisdiction over marriage:
    (Honourable Sir A. A. Dorion): I can well understand what is meant by the regulation of the law of divorce; but what is meant by the regulation of the marriage question? Is the General Government to be at liberty to set aside all that we have been in the habit of doing in Lower Canada in this respect? Will the General Government have the power to determine the degree of relationship and the age beyond which parties may marry, as well as the consent which will be required to make a marriage valid? ... Will all these questions be left to the General Government? If so, it will have the power to upset one of the most important portions of our civil code, and one affecting more than any other all classes of society.

    A compromise was reached whereby marriage would be left to the provincial governments, and divorce would be left to the federal government. Effectively, they knew divorce existed in certain jurisdictions and that it was a "necessarily evil" and that by placing it in the hands of the federal government, "...its consequences would be less serious, because they would be more cramped in their development, and consequently less demoralizing and less fatal in their influence." Technically, legislative power would be held by the federal government over both marriage & divorce while the solemnization of marriage, as you mention, is in the hands of the provinces, but in practice the federal government was almost exclusively active in the divorce side of things as was intended.

    Aegis on
    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +4/1d8+2 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Meanwhile, because this is the gift that keeps on giving:
    Every single student employee at Parks Canada this past summer experienced pay problems related to the federal government's Phoenix payroll system.

    The agency confirms that all 1,659 student workers were improperly paid between July 11 and Aug. 26.

    "At that time, all 1,659 students had one or more reported pay issues," said Natalie Fay, chief of media relations at Parks Canada.

    CBC News first learned about the troubling statistic after obtaining a series of weekly updates on Phoenix through an access-to-information request.

    Since Phoenix was rolled out, more than 80,000 public servants have been overpaid, underpaid or not paid at all.

    ...

    "Phoenix would automatically input students at the lowest possible pay level," Jesse Fleming, chief of staff and corporate secretary at Parks Canada, said in a message to Kyle Harrietha, director of parliamentary affairs and issues management at the environment minister's office.

    "This was a systemic issue with the software," Fleming wrote, which led to students being paid at the wrong rate.

    ...

    The weekly briefings also show a slow resolution of issues for some student workers. After six weeks of no progress, nearly 150 students had their problems fixed by Sept. 2.

    The number of outstanding cases continued to shrink until the week of Nov. 4 — the last briefing obtained by CBC News. It shows 475 students were still experiencing problems at that time.

    The entire summer student workforce for Parks Canada automatically set to the lowest possible wage for July-August, and a full 25% of them still have pay issues 3-4 months later. This would be comical if it weren't rage-inducing.

    Aegis on
    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +4/1d8+2 | Spell +4/DC 12
    Caulk Bite 6Gnome-InterruptusRichySwashbucklerXXCanadianWolverine
«13456746
Sign In or Register to comment.