6 ms·

It seems that convenience is an important factor; access to retail in the most populous province is low, so alternative means of access to the good are still in

by dpflan 7y ago

It seems that convenience is an important factor; access to retail in the most populous province is low, so alternative means of access to the good are still in favor (i.e. black market). Purport the bubble is bursting after examining the system when it is functioning in a less constrained way that rivals the current system (i.e. black market). "This is especially true in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. Red tape and a cap on the number of cannabis retail outlets have made rollout slow. Retail licenses were awarded by lottery, and the province held the number of licenses at 24, to serve a population of 14.5m." "In December, the Ontario government announced that after a slow and fitful start, the province will open itself up to more cannabis retail. It will do away with the lottery system, the cap on the number of private stores and cancel some pre-qualification requirements." List of Canadian Provinces by Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and...

CoolGuySteve 7y ago
Is it even constitutional for a province to sandbag a federal regulation like this? Retail marijuana sales in Ontario are still effectively illegal.
- herge 7y ago
  Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to but into commercial law that is not under it's purview?
  - derefr 7y ago
    Provinces aren’t states. The powers of the Canadian provincial governments are delegated to them from the Canadian federal government, not the other way around. Canada does not have a constitution that constrains federal power, since it was not formed by the uniting of states wary of federal power, but rather the uniting of colonies which all considered themselves to be under the aegis of a single sovereignty (Britain). Fun fact: rather than each province having a plain-old governor, Canada (as any Commonwealth country) has one Governor General for the whole country; and then each province has a Lieutenant Governor, also appointed by the Queen, to serve under the Governor General.
    - redis_mlc 7y ago
      > the uniting of colonies which all considered themselves to be under the aegis of a single sovereignty (Britain). Mostly they were united under a common desire for welfare transfer payments. Except Ontario, which pays for that, eh.
    - herge 7y ago
      Provinces aren't states, but, for example, I live in a distinct nation to you (I assume, if you are under the "aegis of Britain" ;) There is no written constitution, but there are specific acts, charters and traditions that form constitutional law, and define the clear divisions of responsibility between the provincial and federal government. That includes my government's right to set laws about signage of commercial establishments, specific consumer rights I get, and also the commercial law around the sale of both alcohol and cannabis.
      - derefr 7y ago
        > I assume, if you are under the "aegis of Britain" ;) Not me, but certainly the provincial legislative assemblies of 1867 :) > there are specific acts, charters and traditions that form constitutional law, and define the clear divisions of responsibility between the provincial and federal government The difference is that these powers are a delegation of federal power to the provinces, rather than reservation of state power away from a federation. The relationship between the federal and provincial governments in Canada is a lot like the relationship between the Queen and the parliament in Britain: in practice, right now, the Queen is powerless; but technically, the parliament's power derives from the Queen, and there's nothing legally stopping a monarch from revoking that delegation of power. In the current cultural climate, that'd be unthinkable; but all it would take is "mere" sectarian shift to allow for it.
        eigenvector 7y ago
        No, that's not correct. Provincial and federal power are both derived equally and in parallel from the Crown. One is not subordinate to the other.
      - 7y ago
- retrac 7y ago
  With the way the feds wrote the Cannabis Act, it's actually within a province's power to outright ban the sale of cannabis within their jurisdiction, should they wish. Basically, the federal law removed the criminal prohibition for trafficking and possession, only if the sale/possession is authorized by a provincial law that conforms with certain requirements laid out in the federal law. Specifically: 69 (1) A person may possess, sell or distribute cannabis if the person is authorized to sell cannabis under a provincial Act that contains the legislative measures referred to in subsection (3) [...] (3) (a) they may sell only cannabis that has been produced by a person that is authorized under this Act to produce cannabis for commercial purposes; (b) they may not sell cannabis to young persons; (c) they are required to keep appropriate records respecting their activities in relation to cannabis that they possess for commercial purposes; and (d) they are required to take adequate measures to reduce the risk of cannabis that they possess for commercial purposes being diverted to an illicit market or activity. All the provinces have enacted laws compatible with the requirements there, but each did so slightly differently. Production remains more closely held by the federal government, and is regulated directly.
- eigenvector 7y ago
  Yes. The federal government previously banned cannabis under its criminal law power; it can decriminalize it but it cannot dictate regulations on the sale of goods - something which ordinarily falls under provincial authority. Take a look at section 92 of the Constitution Act. Canadian provinces have expansive powers to regulate commerce within provincial boundaries. This is recognized in the federal legislation on cannabis which left almost every aspect of retail regulation to the provinces. This is also exactly parallel to how alcohol is regulated in Canada.
sunir 7y ago
Summarizing the article; The stock bubble burst. The industry will continue to see retail growth as it carves into the black market. It is limited by fundamental demand towards marijuana in the population which is ok but not as pervasive as alcohol and tobacco. I personally barely experience any impact of legal marijuana in my life besides smelling it on the street as it isn’t illegal any more. As the article states it isn’t like we became a nation of potheads. I only know 2 people amongst my friends who have made more than one purchase at a retailer. They don’t even use it recreationally when they are out with us because we are all old enough that we have to drive, work, parent, etc. My anecdote I think fits with the statistics and the economic availability the article lays out. ps Future US border guards reading this comment may rejoice at how boring Canada remains. :)
- dpflan 7y ago
  Good point, the irrational exuberance took over but was tamed by the rollout/circumstance? Hard to sell a product and grow when you actually are not allowed/physically able to.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  > it isn’t like we became a nation of potheads Indeed, countries who legalized cannabis rather saw demand stay stable or even fall (hence why the UN has been advocating to end the "war on drugs" for about two decades now). In fact we have data on alcohol as well in the past century, and clearly prohibition was not correlated with less drinking, more like the opposite. There's a strong body of studies laying out reasons — the most striking to me being, "if someone indeed has a drug problem, who should take care of them: a cop or a doctor?", implying that people don't even talk to their doctors about illegal substances, for fear of legal consequences, which thus compounds the public health problem; not to mention that the black market is likely to encourage addiction, as well as supply "bad" products. There's really no argument for a legal solution to drugs, the only proven way to get a healthier population in that regard is from the health / medical angle. > we are all old enough that we have to drive, work, parent, etc. That's also part of it: legal things otherwise dangerous are introduced with care to the population (warnings, policies regarding the youth, etc). This is how, despite the incredible risks it poses, we are able to sell alcohol to the general population and yet contain the risks to a large measure, because we are educated about it and responsible, and we can talk, watch out for others, etc. Granted, it's still the first cause of death on Earth (about equal with tobacco), but it's still a victory given the dangerosity of the product (from a toxicological standpoint, it's the most lethal category, on par with cocaine). That being said, I hate it when people think it's OK to drink and drive or drink and parent if they remain below the legal maximum. Recreation means that, it's the opposite of "duty": one should not drink or smoke at all if they are expected to be responsible for others, especially children. Get that psychoactive substance (beer, wine, cannabis...) when you're really only responsible for yourself. The legal limit, again, in matters of health (here, your ability to be lucid and with good reflexes) is only indicative, a tolerance for those who didn't have enough time before taking the wheel — certainly not an invitation to drink up until that threshold like some badge of honor.
lordnacho 7y ago
Are they not allowed to deliver the stuff? You'd think that would make the most sense if there's limited stores.
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  delivery exists here in Toronto/Gta but more remote areas of Ontario are lacking
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  It doesn't make sense to pay a surcharge for delivery when the product is abundant on the grey market. As far as the "bubble bursting", well, anyone who thought the Canadian government was going to allow the market to mint Marijuana millionaires and billionaires was simply naive.
  - skyyler 7y ago
    Heavy disagree there. Among my age group, cartridges of concentrated cannabis are far more popular than actual plant material. Buying from a legal and regulated business gives peace of mind that the concentrate won't be cut with dangerous materials as they often are in the black market. I've purchased cartridges in the grey market in California that contained hazardous materials. It can happen anywhere.
ChoGGi 7y ago
Ontario has always been a bit weird like that (LCBO stores for liqueur, Beer Store for beer). Out here in Lethbridge, AB (about 100K pop) there's 20 odd stores on Google maps (3-4 within walking distance of me). I've also seen another one or two in the process of being built around town. I made the assumption this story was about too many stores and not enough demand :) Forgot to mention, in AB all you need (I believe) is a license to sell and you're good to go (like with alcohol).

by dpflan 7y ago

CoolGuySteve 7y ago

Is it even constitutional for a province to sandbag a federal regulation like this? Retail marijuana sales in Ontario are still effectively illegal.

herge 7y ago
Because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to but into commercial law that is not under it's purview?
- derefr 7y ago
  Provinces aren’t states. The powers of the Canadian provincial governments are delegated to them from the Canadian federal government, not the other way around. Canada does not have a constitution that constrains federal power, since it was not formed by the uniting of states wary of federal power, but rather the uniting of colonies which all considered themselves to be under the aegis of a single sovereignty (Britain). Fun fact: rather than each province having a plain-old governor, Canada (as any Commonwealth country) has one Governor General for the whole country; and then each province has a Lieutenant Governor, also appointed by the Queen, to serve under the Governor General.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    > the uniting of colonies which all considered themselves to be under the aegis of a single sovereignty (Britain). Mostly they were united under a common desire for welfare transfer payments. Except Ontario, which pays for that, eh.
  - herge 7y ago
    Provinces aren't states, but, for example, I live in a distinct nation to you (I assume, if you are under the "aegis of Britain" ;) There is no written constitution, but there are specific acts, charters and traditions that form constitutional law, and define the clear divisions of responsibility between the provincial and federal government. That includes my government's right to set laws about signage of commercial establishments, specific consumer rights I get, and also the commercial law around the sale of both alcohol and cannabis.
    - derefr 7y ago
      > I assume, if you are under the "aegis of Britain" ;) Not me, but certainly the provincial legislative assemblies of 1867 :) > there are specific acts, charters and traditions that form constitutional law, and define the clear divisions of responsibility between the provincial and federal government The difference is that these powers are a delegation of federal power to the provinces, rather than reservation of state power away from a federation. The relationship between the federal and provincial governments in Canada is a lot like the relationship between the Queen and the parliament in Britain: in practice, right now, the Queen is powerless; but technically, the parliament's power derives from the Queen, and there's nothing legally stopping a monarch from revoking that delegation of power. In the current cultural climate, that'd be unthinkable; but all it would take is "mere" sectarian shift to allow for it.
      - eigenvector 7y ago
        No, that's not correct. Provincial and federal power are both derived equally and in parallel from the Crown. One is not subordinate to the other.
    - 7y ago
retrac 7y ago
With the way the feds wrote the Cannabis Act, it's actually within a province's power to outright ban the sale of cannabis within their jurisdiction, should they wish. Basically, the federal law removed the criminal prohibition for trafficking and possession, only if the sale/possession is authorized by a provincial law that conforms with certain requirements laid out in the federal law. Specifically: 69 (1) A person may possess, sell or distribute cannabis if the person is authorized to sell cannabis under a provincial Act that contains the legislative measures referred to in subsection (3) [...] (3) (a) they may sell only cannabis that has been produced by a person that is authorized under this Act to produce cannabis for commercial purposes; (b) they may not sell cannabis to young persons; (c) they are required to keep appropriate records respecting their activities in relation to cannabis that they possess for commercial purposes; and (d) they are required to take adequate measures to reduce the risk of cannabis that they possess for commercial purposes being diverted to an illicit market or activity. All the provinces have enacted laws compatible with the requirements there, but each did so slightly differently. Production remains more closely held by the federal government, and is regulated directly.
eigenvector 7y ago
Yes. The federal government previously banned cannabis under its criminal law power; it can decriminalize it but it cannot dictate regulations on the sale of goods - something which ordinarily falls under provincial authority. Take a look at section 92 of the Constitution Act. Canadian provinces have expansive powers to regulate commerce within provincial boundaries. This is recognized in the federal legislation on cannabis which left almost every aspect of retail regulation to the provinces. This is also exactly parallel to how alcohol is regulated in Canada.

sunir 7y ago

Summarizing the article; The stock bubble burst. The industry will continue to see retail growth as it carves into the black market. It is limited by fundamental demand towards marijuana in the population which is ok but not as pervasive as alcohol and tobacco. I personally barely experience any impact of legal marijuana in my life besides smelling it on the street as it isn’t illegal any more. As the article states it isn’t like we became a nation of potheads. I only know 2 people amongst my friends who have made more than one purchase at a retailer. They don’t even use it recreationally when they are out with us because we are all old enough that we have to drive, work, parent, etc. My anecdote I think fits with the statistics and the economic availability the article lays out. ps Future US border guards reading this comment may rejoice at how boring Canada remains. :)

dpflan 7y ago
Good point, the irrational exuberance took over but was tamed by the rollout/circumstance? Hard to sell a product and grow when you actually are not allowed/physically able to.
K0SM0S 7y ago
> it isn’t like we became a nation of potheads Indeed, countries who legalized cannabis rather saw demand stay stable or even fall (hence why the UN has been advocating to end the "war on drugs" for about two decades now). In fact we have data on alcohol as well in the past century, and clearly prohibition was not correlated with less drinking, more like the opposite. There's a strong body of studies laying out reasons — the most striking to me being, "if someone indeed has a drug problem, who should take care of them: a cop or a doctor?", implying that people don't even talk to their doctors about illegal substances, for fear of legal consequences, which thus compounds the public health problem; not to mention that the black market is likely to encourage addiction, as well as supply "bad" products. There's really no argument for a legal solution to drugs, the only proven way to get a healthier population in that regard is from the health / medical angle. > we are all old enough that we have to drive, work, parent, etc. That's also part of it: legal things otherwise dangerous are introduced with care to the population (warnings, policies regarding the youth, etc). This is how, despite the incredible risks it poses, we are able to sell alcohol to the general population and yet contain the risks to a large measure, because we are educated about it and responsible, and we can talk, watch out for others, etc. Granted, it's still the first cause of death on Earth (about equal with tobacco), but it's still a victory given the dangerosity of the product (from a toxicological standpoint, it's the most lethal category, on par with cocaine). That being said, I hate it when people think it's OK to drink and drive or drink and parent if they remain below the legal maximum. Recreation means that, it's the opposite of "duty": one should not drink or smoke at all if they are expected to be responsible for others, especially children. Get that psychoactive substance (beer, wine, cannabis...) when you're really only responsible for yourself. The legal limit, again, in matters of health (here, your ability to be lucid and with good reflexes) is only indicative, a tolerance for those who didn't have enough time before taking the wheel — certainly not an invitation to drink up until that threshold like some badge of honor.

lordnacho 7y ago

Are they not allowed to deliver the stuff? You'd think that would make the most sense if there's limited stores.

hi5eyes 7y ago
delivery exists here in Toronto/Gta but more remote areas of Ontario are lacking
aguyfromnb 7y ago
It doesn't make sense to pay a surcharge for delivery when the product is abundant on the grey market. As far as the "bubble bursting", well, anyone who thought the Canadian government was going to allow the market to mint Marijuana millionaires and billionaires was simply naive.
- skyyler 7y ago
  Heavy disagree there. Among my age group, cartridges of concentrated cannabis are far more popular than actual plant material. Buying from a legal and regulated business gives peace of mind that the concentrate won't be cut with dangerous materials as they often are in the black market. I've purchased cartridges in the grey market in California that contained hazardous materials. It can happen anywhere.

ChoGGi 7y ago

Ontario has always been a bit weird like that (LCBO stores for liqueur, Beer Store for beer). Out here in Lethbridge, AB (about 100K pop) there's 20 odd stores on Google maps (3-4 within walking distance of me). I've also seen another one or two in the process of being built around town. I made the assumption this story was about too many stores and not enough demand :) Forgot to mention, in AB all you need (I believe) is a license to sell and you're good to go (like with alcohol).