Pot Shops raided today

So these sellers response is to sell weed to any adult that walks in? Maybe it is also a civil rights issue that they aren't selling to kids.

And until the dispensaries are properly licensed and tax paying members of the business community, they are no different from street dealers. They are currently breaking the law (and you can't license an illegal activity).

"They're breaking the law" astounds me on this site. Maybe you and Butler1000 are unaware of C-36 but advertising sexual services is illegal, as is paying for sexual services. Your selective right wing hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is breathtaking. I don't know why you are on this site at all, but there's no point in engaging with people who believe that I am a criminal, that hobbyists should be arrested, and that all the SPs, escort agencies, massage parlours, spas, strip clubs, and this forum, shut down.
"Because like pot dispensaries, they are breaking the law and you can't license an illegal activity"


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html


b) Offences: Purchasers and Third Parties

Purchasing Offence


Bill C-36 criminalizes, for the first time in Canadian criminal law, the purchase of sexual services. This new offence makes prostitution itself an illegal practice; every time prostitution takes place, regardless of venue, an offence is committed. In criminalizing those who create the demand for prostitution, Bill C-36 furthers its overall objective to reduce that demand, with a view to ultimately abolishing prostitution to the greatest extent possible.

Bill C-36’s new purchasing offence prohibits obtaining sexual services for consideration, or communicating in any place for that purpose
(section 286.1). This offence imposes maximum penalties of 5 years imprisonment where prosecuted by indictment and 18 months where prosecuted by summary conviction and escalating mandatory minimum fines. Purchasing sexual services from a person under the age of 18 is an even more serious offence. Although already prohibited in existing criminal law,[23] Bill C-36 moves this offence to Part VIII of the Criminal Code, along with most other prostitution offences, and increases the maximum penalty from 5 to 10 years imprisonment and the applicable mandatory minimum penalty for a subsequent offence from 6 months to one year.

The purchasing offence is carefully tailored to its objective of reducing the demand for sexual services. It is based on the existing offence that prohibits obtaining sexual services for consideration from persons under the age of 18 years and, accordingly, jurisprudence interpreting that offence assists in defining the scope of the new offence. Jurisprudence that interprets the meaning of “prostitution” is also instructive, given that “prostitution” is defined as the exchange of sexual services for payment.[24]

To determine whether a particular act constitutes a “sexual service for consideration” or “prostitution”, the court will consider whether the service is sexual in nature and whether the purpose of providing the service is to sexually gratify the person who receives it. Specifically, a contract or agreement, whether express or implied, for a specific sexual service in return for some form of consideration is required.[25] In particular, the consideration must be contingent on the provision of a particular sexual service and the contract or agreement must be entered into before the sexual service is provided.[26] Sexual activity involving no expectation of getting paid for the services provided does not meet the test.[27] Sexual activity in the context of ongoing relationships also fails to meet the test, unless the evidence shows that the alleged consideration was contingent on the provision of a particular sexual service.[28] In one case, gifts given to the complainant were not viewed as consideration for sexual favours rendered, but rather as gifts given “dans le cadre plus large de la relation affective entre l’accusé et le plaignant”.[29] Another case held that the phrase “sexual services for consideration” is not intended to apply to consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another.[30]

The following activities have been found to constitute a sexual service or an act of prostitution, if provided in return for some form of consideration: lap-dancing, which involves sitting in the client’s lap and simulating sexual intercourse;[31] masturbation of a client in the context of a massage parlour, whether or not the client climaxes;[32] and, sado-masochistic activities, provided that the acts can be considered to be sexually stimulating/gratifying.[33] However, jurisprudence is clear that neither acts related to the production of pornography,[34] nor stripping[35] meet the test. In most cases, physical contact, or sexual interaction, between the person providing the service and the person receiving it is required; however, acts for which consideration is provided that take place in a private room in a club and that are sexual in nature, but do not involve physical contact between the “client” and “performer”, such as self-masturbation, have been found to constitute prostitution.
[36]

In short, whether a particular service meets the test outlined above is a factual determination to be made by a court. Applicable jurisprudence provides flexibility in addressing new ways of effecting prostitution, while also limiting the scope of such offences to acts related to prostitution, consistent with its objective of reducing demand for sexual services.

Advertising Offence

To complement the purchasing offence, Bill C-36 criminalizes, also for the first time in Canadian criminal law, advertising the sale of sexual services. This new offence targets the promotion of prostitution through advertisements, which contributes to the demand for prostitution. This approach is consistent with the legislation’s overall objective of reducing the demand for prostitution with a view to discouraging entry into it, deterring participation in it and ultimately abolishing it to the greatest extent possible.

Bill C-36’s new advertising offence criminalizes knowingly advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration
(section 286.4). This offence imposes maximum penalties of 5 years imprisonment where prosecuted by indictment and 18 months where prosecuted by summary conviction.

The advertising offence targets persons who place advertisements in print media or post advertisements on websites. Publishers or website administrators could be held criminally liable as parties if they know of the existence of the advertisement and that the advertisement is in fact for the sale of sexual services. Bill C-36 also allows the court to order the seizure of materials containing advertisements for the sale of sexual services, as well as their removal from the Internet, regardless of who posted them, which is also consistent with Bill C-36’s objective of reducing demand for prostitution.
 
"They're breaking the law" astounds me on this site. Maybe you and Butler1000 are unaware of C-36 but advertising sexual services is illegal, as is paying for sexual services. Your selective right wing hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is breathtaking. I don't know why you are on this site at all, but there's no point in engaging with people who believe that I am a criminal, that hobbyists should be arrested, and that all the SPs, escort agencies, massage parlours, spas, strip clubs, and this forum, shut down.
"Because like pot dispensaries, they are breaking the law and you can't license an illegal activity"


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html

To use your example....

This would be the equivalent of Trudeau announcing he was going to legalize the hobby but it would take a awhile.

So instead of waiting a bunch of SP's decide it would be a good idea to start opening up brothels with open advertising near schools, churches, wherever.

How long would it take the authorities to crack down.

The issue is with the public nature of the shops. If there were a lot quieter and a lot less than out of sight out of mind would apply.
 
They are doing their jobs. Can you truly say all of these pop ups are legit and selling decent quality? If someone gets sick from a laced batch what then?

Blair stated that the police have a responsibility to enforce the law. Vancouver did it as well. Many of the sellers are from there. They need to have a bit of patience. Or accept the consequences.


What exactly is a "laced batch" and why would a storefront dispensary add to their costs and provide adulterated product?

Give it up old man. Stick to commenting on things you have knowledge and wisdom of.
 
To use your example....

This would be the equivalent of Trudeau announcing he was going to legalize the hobby but it would take a awhile.

So instead of waiting a bunch of SP's decide it would be a good idea to start opening up brothels with open advertising near schools, churches, wherever.

How long would it take the authorities to crack down.

The issue is with the public nature of the shops. If there were a lot quieter and a lot less than out of sight out of mind would apply.


What is with these straw men arguments? And what is with this "schools, churches" bogey man on everything? IS a brothel going to attract schoolkids or churchgoers? Or will the school or church now be at risk from perverts deciding to go kidnap victims instead of goig to the locl brothel?

And to the point of weed sales, I suspect the easiest and highest volume of pot sales occur at high schools. Only differences are that anyoe of any age can buy weed at school, and that the distributors of high school pot suppliers are almost certainly gangs who settle trade disputes with violence and guns.
 
The point I was making is that some people make it sound like all the police are doing is raiding pot shops.

Nobody says "ALL" the cops are doing is raiding pot shops.

Do you know how many cops are assigned to guns and gangs? Do you know how many are assigned to patrol areas like the Jane Finch corridor? Do you know how many cops are assigned to schools and doing outreach in those areas? Do you know how that compares to the pot raids?

Raids take a lot less time to organize as the shops were pretty obvious. Where as raids of gang apartments is much tougher and take more investigation. So there's also the man hours to consider.

So to fill some arrest Arrest Quota or some other performance based metric, you are suggesting that the easy, soft targets are a better use of limited police resources than directing said police resources to gun toting drug dealers apartments?



Furthermore, the pot shops lacked any sort of discretion and were breaking the law. What do you guys expect?!!!??? .


I expect the police to prioritize their limited resources to investigating violent criminal activity. Or busting high school level dealers.

Not basing their investigations on a lack of "discretion" in selling an already widely available (on the BLACK market) product that the government has CLEARLY promised will be legalized WHEN THEY FIGURE OUT HOW TO TAX AND REGULATE IT.

If these dispensaries are not selling to those under 19, and are not enforcing their business practices with violence, then leave them alone and don't waste precious police and court resources..
 
What exactly is a "laced batch" and why would a storefront dispensary add to their costs and provide adulterated product?

Give it up old man. Stick to commenting on things you have knowledge and wisdom of.

A laced batch is when they add chemicals and or other drugs to make it more potent. You can spray various smokable drugs onto the leaves. And they have been doing it for for decades. One of the reasons I quit is it got so bad back in high school you could see the white specks. And they would spray anything on it.

So yes please don't tell me there aren't unscrupulous growers who who spray a meth derivative or other drug to get a leg up on the competition. That's the point. It would isn't any different than selling a 90 % alcohol bottle. And the consumer doesn't know because there is no standardized ingredient and potency list.

I have knowledge because I smoked and dealt. I saw first hand what bad dealers can do.

I support the legalization. Done right.
 
What is with these straw men arguments? And what is with this "schools, churches" bogey man on everything? IS a brothel going to attract schoolkids or churchgoers? Or will the school or church now be at risk from perverts deciding to go kidnap victims instead of goig to the locl brothel?

And to the point of weed sales, I suspect the easiest and highest volume of pot sales occur at high schools. Only differences are that anyoe of any age can buy weed at school, and that the distributors of high school pot suppliers are almost certainly gangs who settle trade disputes with violence and guns.

It isn't about the reality of course there won't be major issues. But that doesn't mean the public won't get their dander up. Why be antagonistic when you can quietly go about your business and allow the community to get used to them.

The in your face tactics will only result in communities digging in. And more fights. And yes things like this can also affect property values. And attract clientele that communities may not like.

This isn't any different than when they stopped more bars from opening on Ossington. Due to the drunken behavior that was spilling over into the residential neighbourhood.

If several(and apparently this occured on Danforth) open within close proximity the. Same can occur. You and Matt may be responsible. But let's face it. Some aren't. You know it too.

And they have to take that into account when figuring out how to allow for the sale.
 
First off, I do not smoke marijuana. Tried it long ago and more recently and the intoxication characteristics of both indica's and sativa's are not something that I personally find pleasurable. So I have no personal interest in getting weed easier or more difficult.

However, as a member of society I feel the black market has created a lot of serious social problems from criminal gangs to giving otherwise peaceful decent people the scarlet letter of a permanent criminal record.

So, if it takes an interim grey market to transition to a fully legitimized and legal marketplace to begin to reduce the black market and violent criminal enterprises that thrive solely because of the criminalization of marijuana, then that is a small price to pay.

As far as I'm concerned this "weed" should be as legal as tomatoes. The ONLY offence should be that of supplying it to anyone under 19 years. As it is for cigarettes and alcohol. But government has to get their fucking fingers into everything. And black market cigarettes drive profitable and violent underground criminal organizations. If marijuana is heavily taxed, the black market will continue to thrive and nothing will be accomplished except increasing the amount of people trying and smoking marijuana.
 
First off, I do not smoke marijuana. Tried it long ago and more recently and the intoxication characteristics of both indica's and sativa's are not something that I personally find pleasurable. So I have no personal interest in getting weed easier or more difficult.

However, as a member of society I feel the black market has created a lot of serious social problems from criminal gangs to giving otherwise peaceful decent people the scarlet letter of a permanent criminal record.

So, if it takes an interim grey market to transition to a fully legitimized and legal marketplace to begin to reduce the black market and violent criminal enterprises that thrive solely because of the criminalization of marijuana, then that is a small price to pay.

As far as I'm concerned this "weed" should be as legal as tomatoes. The ONLY offence should be that of supplying it to anyone under 19 years. As it is for cigarettes and alcohol. But government has to get their fucking fingers into everything. And black market cigarettes drive profitable and violent underground criminal organizations. If marijuana is heavily taxed, the black market will continue to thrive and nothing will be accomplished except increasing the amount of people trying and smoking marijuana.

And my issue is the grey market are in fact criminal enterprises. How do you think they popped up so quickly with a ready supply. It has to be coming from illegal sources. Which means they are or are dealing with criminal enterprises.

So all it is is a nicer face at the retail level.

I'm not worried about the sellers, other than if they choose to tamper with the product to increase potency with more nefarious drugs. It's the suppliers who would happily do it. Because they are drug dealers and have done it in the past.

Considering you brought up smoking and how unscrupulous the tobacco manufacturers have been(and being a recently quit smoker I think they should be shut down) what makes you think former criminal growers will be upstanding corporate citizens?

We need the regulations the same way we need standards for liquor, our food supply, medical supplies etal.

Because some people will happily kill people to make a buck.
 
And my issue is the grey market are in fact criminal enterprises. How do you think they popped up so quickly with a ready supply. It has to be coming from illegal sources. Which means they are or are dealing with criminal enterprises.

So all it is is a nicer face at the retail level.

I'm not worried about the sellers, other than if they choose to tamper with the product to increase potency with more nefarious drugs. It's the suppliers who would happily do it. Because they are drug dealers and have done it in the past.

Considering you brought up smoking and how unscrupulous the tobacco manufacturers have been(and being a recently quit smoker I think they should be shut down) what makes you think former criminal growers will be upstanding corporate citizens?

We need the regulations the same way we need standards for liquor, our food supply, medical supplies etal.

Because some people will happily kill people to make a buck.

To be perfectly honest, the well regulated alcohol monopoly contributes to more deaths than guns in Ontario, probably by a factor of 100. There's no way of legislating risk out of life. Same can be said about food safety and pharmaceutical industry. We even have a few good hearted individuals worrying themselves sick about high drivers. My question is, where were they for the last 30 years? But now, on the eve of legalization, we have another problem.
 
To be perfectly honest, the well regulated alcohol monopoly contributes to more deaths than guns in Ontario, probably by a factor of 100. There's no way of legislating risk out of life. Same can be said about food safety and pharmaceutical industry. We even have a few good hearted individuals worrying themselves sick about high drivers. My question is, where were they for the last 30 years? But now, on the eve of legalization, we have another problem.

Obviously not completely. But as I noted until they regulated it people were selling 90% pure alcohol to people that killed a lot more.

Hell they had to regulate milk to prevent children's deaths for people who were diluting it with water and chalk back in the day. And that was in North America. And of course the cigarette manufacturers.

So my opinion is let's not have a deregulated market who's main supplier may end up being former criminals and at least have standards and inspections.

And try to prevent lives lost and a crackdown after the fact.
 
Obviously not completely. But as I noted until they regulated it people were selling 90% pure alcohol to people that killed a lot more.

Hell they had to regulate milk to prevent children's deaths for people who were diluting it with water and chalk back in the day. And that was in North America. And of course the cigarette manufacturers.

So my opinion is let's not have a deregulated market who's main supplier may end up being former criminals and at least have standards and inspections.

And try to prevent lives lost and a crackdown after the fact.

The thing is, in a developed country such as Canada, there's no such thing as unregulated market. We have nothing to fear from that quadrant. I more fear over regulation and a monopoly a la LCBO. A healthy, competetive sin marketplace, be that narcotics or prostitution or booze, should be an aim for all freedom loving adults.
 
The thing is, in a developed country such as Canada, there's no such thing as unregulated market. We have nothing to fear from that quadrant. I more fear over regulation and a monopoly a la LCBO. A healthy, competetive sin marketplace, be that narcotics or prostitution or booze, should be an aim for all freedom loving adults.

Um.....show me the regulatory body in charge of inspecting what is being sold in the pot shops today. Can you identify the growers? The shippers? The ones who developed the strains? Can you quantify the THC levels? How about the other medicinal levels?

Can you state with reasobale authority it hasn't been tampered with?

No, no one can. So until they can, it's dangerous. Not because of the pot itself so much but what a person can do to it to make a buck. And history has proven over and over again the depths people will go to to back a fast buck and run.
 
Um.....show me the regulatory body in charge of inspecting what is being sold in the pot shops today. Can you identify the growers? The shippers? The ones who developed the strains? Can you quantify the THC levels? How about the other medicinal levels?

Can you state with reasobale authority it hasn't been tampered with?

No, no one can. So until they can, it's dangerous. Not because of the pot itself so much but what a person can do to it to make a buck. And history has proven over and over again the depths people will go to to back a fast buck and run.

How can I? The open marketplace for weed in TO is only months old. So far, the powers that be are not interested in regulation. They're still waiting for guidance from Ottawa. It's only reasonable to see the would be weed merchants jump the clock to establish themselves. Everyone knows, whatever form the legalization takes, it will be regulated. That goes without saying. But, raiding shops on the eve of legalization is close to stupidest waste of resources I've seen in a long time.
 
How can I? The open marketplace for weed in TO is only months old. So far, the powers that be are not interested in regulation. They're still waiting for guidance from Ottawa. It's only reasonable to see the would be weed merchants jump the clock to establish themselves. Everyone knows, whatever form the legalization takes, it will be regulated. That goes without saying. But, raiding shops on the eve of legalization is close to stupidest waste of resources I've seen in a long time.

You're missing the point. It shouldn't be an open marketplace without the regulation mentioned above. And it isn't. It's an Illegal activity still partially due to this. That's the final hurdle to acceptance. Once safety is addressed.

They should be shut down until this is done. Because if they don't and someone buys bad product from them what then? You don't think they powers that be will overreact?

But yes you are correct. Trudeau has passed the buck to Blair to take the heat for his own cowardice and refusal to expend political capital to smooth this one over. He could resolve it with one statement. Instead he is waffling on a key election promise.

This may not even get done before the next election at the glacial rate he is moving on this.

And I'm still betting no matter what they get shut down in Ontario in favor of an LCBO Style seller. Smitherman is an owner and still a key fundraiser for the Provincial Liberals, let alone the Fed Liberal ties to growers.

They may well be hoping a local seller fucks up so they have the excuse.
 
You're missing the point. It shouldn't be an open marketplace without the regulation mentioned above. And it isn't. It's an Illegal activity still partially due to this. That's the final hurdle to acceptance. Once safety is addressed.

They should be shut down until this is done. Because if they don't and someone buys bad product from them what then? You don't think they powers that be will overreact?

But yes you are correct. Trudeau has passed the buck to Blair to take the heat for his own cowardice and refusal to expend political capital to smooth this one over. He could resolve it with one statement. Instead he is waffling on a key election promise.

This may not even get done before the next election at the glacial rate he is moving on this.

And I'm still betting no matter what they get shut down in Ontario in favor of an LCBO Style seller. Smitherman is an owner and still a key fundraiser for the Provincial Liberals, let alone the Fed Liberal ties to growers.

They may well be hoping a local seller fucks up so they have the excuse.

You cannot bring regulations without legislation legalizing the product. The craziest part of this is that government thinks the LCBO model will work on weed. It will not. Legalization means anybody can grow for personal use. That means surplus - it's a weed and it grows like it. That means $180 per ounce is unsustainable. It will not be as profitable undertaking as everyone thinks. The main reason I support the independent merchants because it's the proper way to establish legitimate market for weed. Price wise and quality wise. The only way the government can develop weed market is by establishing overpriced monopoly that will just feed the black market and fuel more crime.
 
You cannot bring regulations without legislation legalizing the product. The craziest part of this is that government thinks the LCBO model will work on weed. It will not. Legalization means anybody can grow for personal use. That means surplus - it's a weed and it grows like it. That means $180 per ounce is unsustainable. It will not be as profitable undertaking as everyone thinks. The main reason I support the independent merchants because it's the proper way to establish legitimate market for weed. Price wise and quality wise. The only way the government can develop weed market is by establishing overpriced monopoly that will just feed the black market and fuel more crime.

In the Netherlands you are allowed only three plants for household. If neighbours see a larger operation they will report it. I don't think you will have a lot of surplus from three plants. Not everyone wants or can grow.
 
In the Netherlands you are allowed only three plants for household. If neighbours see a larger operation they will report it. I don't think you will have a lot of surplus from three plants. Not everyone wants or can grow.

Right now, while illegal, we're literally awash in weed. It's been like this for a few years. It's completely and readily available, just text for it to be delivered right to your door. Supply is not the problem. I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.
 
Queens. Park now concedes that the government's anticipated profits from sales of recreational marijuana will be significantly lower than expected. The warning labels that appear on alcohol and cigarettes products will probably appear on marijuana products as well with even more content. The possibility of vastly different regulations in different provinces is great as well. When Chief Saunders said that Toronto LE is going after illegal store fronts that are making money , his statement re-enforced my notion that the police are protecting government profit motives along with government connected private interests.