> the "war on drugs" has been a miserable failure that has been, for the most part, a footgun.
It has accomplished everything its proponents hoped for and much more.
"You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities”
- John Ehrlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs under Richard Nixon
Typical war on the 'others' as championed by the Conservative party members: terrorists, Communists, immigrants, 'drug' users, hippies, ANTIFA, liberals, etc, etc, etc.
It is my understanding that neither Canada nor the USA allows for the importation of products containing THC, so I don't see this as having anything to do with Canada. Perhaps I do not understand what you mean to say?
Canada has pulled American liquor from sales as a tariff retaliation, so Kentucky bourbon sales have dropped considerably. Thus we have the senator from Kentucky trying to kill off domestic competitors for Kentucky liquor.
Since tariffs were placed on Canada, Canada has been boycotting American industries like whisky, specifically because they are significant industries in Republican-controlled states. I don't know whether this move against THC is a response to that pressure, but that's the reference.
You're missing the parent comment's point. Bourbon sales are way down significantly because the largest liquor importer on the continent (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) has banned the import of all American products. Many other provinces followed suit.
I disagree. Legalizing drugs has only created larger black markets in states like California and allowed cartels to legally get into the business and gain more power in other countries.
Yes, I can believe that. We have the same problem with tobacco in France because it is too heavily taxed (black market is massive nowadays).
But that's really a government problem. They always pretend to tax stuff because it will slow the consumption but it never works, people keep using as much or even more if they get served on the black market that doesn't have to answer to regulation and taxation.
All of this is very well known, you just can't regulate drugs consumption, the only thing that works it social pressure but since governments have no say/power in that they pretend otherwise.
It's all very hypocritical, the only reason they legalise some stuff is because they want the tax money. Cannabis is heavily regulated because it is so simple to grow that there would be very little tax money to be made. You would just need to know someone who grow some in his garden, like tomatoes and around the time of harvest you would get massive oversupply.
Fascinating. I don't doubt your experience but I wonder where you are and which segment you're in. What I've heard is that it's the opposite for growers in California. Where weed previously went for $4,000/lb, it now goes for $400/lb.
> I'd think a joint and a glass of bourbon would go hand-in-hand.
They don't. Drunkenness just kind of nullifies pot. I might have a beer when I'm stoned, but only a very tasty one, and only one.
I think that extremely light pot smoking is killing alcohol sales. The tiniest bit of pot is just as pleasing as a mild alcohol buzz, and an alcohol buzz kills the effect of pot. I know I got in the habit for a while of smoking a tiny, tiny bit when I got home, with the effect long gone before I went to sleep. Back in the day (and sometimes still), I would have had one beer, or one glass of wine.
There are terms for the combined effects of drinking alcohol and smoking weed. Cross-faded in English, pachipedo in Spanish. I find these terms and the effects they refer to enjoyable.
I'd think a joint and a glass of bourbon would go hand-in-hand.
Personally, I don't drink or smoke, but I think the "war on drugs" has been a miserable failure that has been, for the most part, a footgun.