RE:RE:RE:Interesting critique of Bill C45Really great post. I hate to respond with a one liner considering the real thought you put into it, but i think we're feeling our way right now, and regs will evolve pretty quickly as we move forward. Like the Americans in the rec states have said, it's much harder to put the genie back in the bottle once it's released. The libs are starting with an emphasis on manageability. There is no need to wipe out the black market over night. The LP's are absolutely positioned to work this all to their advantage. I think the elimination of the grey market dispensary business will be an enormous step.
putitallonred wrote:
Some fair points sark. I posted the articles because a) I presume there are others on here who, like me, are interested in the wider debate surrounding legalization, and more importantly, b) because Bill C45 committee testimony is certainly material to an investment in Canopy or any other LP, since it could affect the regulatory choices made by government. Same reason why a pharma investor should care about IP laws and a oil investor should care about the pipeline debate.
As for some of your other points, I actually agree with cutting the illegal dispensaries out of rec sales, and I don't feel bad for them at all. I might disagree with the current law but that doesn't mean people should be rewarded for breaking it. Same goes for pardons. Just because legislation is introduced doesn't mean you have a free for all until it passes, and guaranteeing amnesty for current offenders would encourage just that.
I also agree that we need reasonably regulated production and distribution, just like we have for alcohol. I like the LP-only model, both as an investor and from a public policy perspective. So that's one aspect of C45 I think they got right.
What I have a problem with are silly half-measures, and the continued criminalization of cannabis beyond the restrictions imposed by the legislation.
For instance, the 30 gram possession limit. Is there a possession limit on wine or beer that I am unaware of? If you are allowed to build a wine cellar, how does it make any sense to criminalize building a weed cellar? Illegal distribution is one thing and will need to be curbed, but that is where pricing, market penetration and sensible regulations come in. As an investor, I have no problem letting people buy all the weed they want, so long as it is from a legal source.
Then there's youth possession. If a 17 year old gets caught with a case of beer, the cops take it away, maybe tell their parents or write a ticket for a regulatory liquor offence. But possession of 6 grams of weed could get the kid (who, by the way, is disproportionately likely to come from an already disadvantaged background) a criminal record. Not to mention the 18 year old who passes a joint to his 17 year old friend at a party. I know this doesn't directly affect my pocketbook but I still have a problem with that. My problem is that it perpetuates many of the same injustices that currently exist, which undercuts the legitimacy and possibly the constitutionality of the legislation. It also reinforces the stigma of cannabis as a more dangerous drug than alcohol, which is certainly not a positive for the businesses seeking to sell it to the public.
The wisdom of allowing home grows is debatable, but the idea of an army of officers scouring back lanes across Canada with tape measures is a joke. Imho, home grows should not have been included in the initial bill, as it is just too ripe for abuse and the 4 plant limit is too difficult to enforce. But they did include it, and so handed every opponent of the bill an easy talking point, and invited a possible constitutional challenge to boot.
As an investor, you might like some restrictive aspects of the law. But what about advertising restrictions? How come every commercial break during a football game I have Mila Kunis selling me Jim Beam (not that I'm complaining), but Ontario won't even let its residents peruse their local government weed outlet, let alone let Snoop publicly endorse Leafs? Does that make sense? It doesn't, and the hypocrisy undercuts the positive aspects of the bill.
Not to belabour my point but there are rational, proportional laws and then there are laws that get struck down by the courts. Now is the time to have the debate and try to get it right. All the focus so far has been on appeasing the "what about the children" crowd, and instead of getting a system that more or less treats recreational cannabis the same as alcohol (which I think would be much better overall for Canopy and the other LP's), we are getting a kind of War on Drugs 2.0. I don't see that as a good thing, as an investor or a citizen.