Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
CANADA IS SET to become the first G7 country to legalise cannabis after politicians yesterday passed a bill that would allow free consumption of the mind-altering drug.
Passed by 205 votes to 82 in the House of Commons, the legislation must still pass the Senate – which could delay, but not block it – and receive royal assent by the governor-general before becoming law, likely by September.
Legalising weed was a 2015 campaign promise of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has acknowledged smoking a joint with friends “five or six times” including since being elected as an MP.
The Liberal government’s pointman on cannabis, Bill Blair, said at the weekend it was “probably looking at a date of implementation somewhere toward the beginning of September, perhaps mid-September”.
Uruguay approved the recreational usage of marijuana five years ago and nine US states and the capital Washington have done so too, but Canada will be the first G7 country to take the step.
An initial 1 July target was set for ending the pot prohibition that dates back to 1923, although it was effectively legalised for medical use nearly two decades ago.
Despite setbacks, Trudeau has insisted his government would move to legalise the production, sale and consumption of the psychoactive drug before facing the electorate again in 2019.
Last week, the government rejected 13 out of 46 amendments to the bill proposed by the Senate after several months of study, with Trudeau’s health minister rising to defend home cultivation of cannabis and branded pot swag.
“Canadians are allowed to make beer at home, or wine,” Health Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor said at the time.
It is already possible for Canadians to grow cannabis for medical purposes and we absolutely believe the legislation should be consistent when it comes to recreational cannabis.
The government, she said, would follow its expert panel’s recommendation to allow at-home cultivation of up to four pot plants for personal use.
As for the proposed advertising restrictions, she said the bill already contains limits such as a requirement for plain packaging.
Cannabis trendsetter?
Once the law is enacted, Canadians over the age of 18 (19 in some regions) will be able to buy a gram of pot for about Can$10 (€6.50) or less, from a patchwork of authorised private and public retail stores or by mail order, with each province and territory responsible for setting up distribution.
Personal possession will be limited to 30 grams (one ounce).
Statistics Canada has estimated that the market will be worth Can$5.7 billion (€3.7 billion), based on last year’s consumption data.
Finance Minister Bill Morneau estimated the cannabis tax haul will be about Can$400 million (€260 million), but Ottawa has agreed to retain only 25% of these monies, with the rest going into provincial government coffers.
In an interview with AFP last month, Trudeau said the world was closely watching Canada’s pot plans and predicted other countries might follow suit.
“There is a lot of interest from our allies in what we’re doing,” he said.
They recognise that Canada is being daring… and recognise that the current regime (of prohibition) does not work, that it’s not preventing young people from having easy access to cannabis.
The prime minister argued that creating a regulated market would take the drug out of the hands of crime groups and “better protect communities and children”.
Yet he added the allies he spoke with ahead of a recent G7 summit in Quebec “are interested in seeing how things go… before they try it”, without specifying which nations.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The law demands owners keep their dogs under control. If a dog attacks, it is not under control, so the law is broken and prosecution should follow. If the dog is under control and allowed to attack, that’s a whole other level of law broken. Either way, owners should be prosecuted in all cases, by Gardai, not illusive dog wardens.
@Seanfhear míshásta: should the dog be destroyed after an attack.
@Seanfhear míshásta: How would that work if a normally tame dog had a brain tumour that changed its behaviour? Would it be right to prosecute people who aren’t medically qualified to detect that?
Laws are meaningless without enforcement.
Dangerous dogs are used as weapons of intimidation by thugs and low level criminals. That’s the problem.
They are not pets or a cared for animal.
The dogs are pretty nearly never the root of the problem.
People who shouldn’t own dogs owning dogs is a problem.
Dogs being trained for police or military service that includes attacking people (or even other animals) is a problem.
Dogs having to resort to their basal instinct to hunt because they’re lost or abandoned is a problem.
@Todd Hebert: If this often repeated old trope was true, why then do we always know the breed of dog before we reach the end of any article reporting an attack ? Every single time. Ignoring the nature of any breed is doing a disservice to the dog.
@Declan Doherty: oh please… there’s extreme media bias when it comes to all things Pits related, be they looking like one to mixes abd completely mislabelled.
Meanwhile every dog attack by other breeds are rarely mentioned in the news where they’ll never mention its breed. It’s the extact same thing they do for people where it’s more than happy to highlight white folk but not other ethnicity.
Sensationalism sells.
@Declan Doherty: did you read the article? Specifically the part about breeds?
It’s near impossible to identify certain breeds. There needs to be controls put in place, but it’s clear the current ones aren’t working.
@Declan Doherty: Well, we don’t know what breeds are involved. The article says that veterinarians have tried & you can’t tell a breed or mix by looking. It would have to be a DNA test. And small dogs also bite when they’re bred to be aggressive and are off lead.
People talk about military, authoritarian types of owners, but in reality I’d say it’s more likely that cash business owners, especially illegal ones, are buying breeds and mistreating them to be aggressive to people. As you say, it’s a disservice to any dog. Besides, people shouldn’t be breeding them and selecting from the most aggressive ones to sell to people.
@Kieran Menon: Mindless twaddle. These dogs are bred for their size, weight, jaw strength and aggressivity. No amount of educating the owner can compensate for that.
@Declan Doherty: XLs will do more damage because of how they were bred, not because they’re more likely to attack . Thats why they’re reported on. I volunteer at a dog sanctuary and the only dogs I am cautious around are the Jack Russells, Yorkies, and Frenchies … only ones who have bitten or tried to bite me.
People should need to apply for a license before they can own anything that can sh!t in the street. Many are not suitable for the responsabity
@Thesaltyurchin: Saw a young woman sh—–g in the street last week, not just dogs to blame
@Sean Doyle: D8?… It’s sort of hilarious that it’s on the ‘driveway’ of Ireland’s biggest tourist attraction. Suppose the tourists expect a bit of peasantry all the same.
Banning breeds is a completely pointless endeavour and doesn’t prevent anything. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the temperament of the dog. Dogs are targeted just because they in theory have the tools to do damage even though they have a very pleasant temperament whereas others are not even though they may be aggressive. Let’s face it it’s down to the owners and little d rotes who should not be allowed to own any animal. They treat these dogs very badly to make them vicious then encourage them to attack. There should be a lifetime ban on these people owning a dog and one that is properly enforced rather than penalising the breed.
It’s the owners who need to be trained. Small dogs can be very vicious, our dog a lab was bitten by a Maltese dog. She’s never forgotten, I never let her near small dogs.
@Emily OByrne: Yes agreed. Stereotyping breeds like Pitbulls, who are actually more like big puppies in their mannerisms and affections, is disastrous to the breed. Unfortunately, because of their size and strength, they can be a killer in the wrong hands. Training and loving homes are essential. And yes, there was a little nightmare of a yapper Jack Russell near my house who would run like the devil towards me every time i went for a walk. It was only when his jaws actually made contact with my ankle did i make a complaint. Thankfully the owners complied and got one of those invisible electric fence things.
@Emily OByrne: Be glad that it was a Maltese and not a Bull breed that attacked your dog. Bull breeds are almost exclusively owned by certain undesirable sections of our society. Both the dogs and their owners should be banned.
@Pauline Gallagher: It would have been a lot messier had it been an XL!
They should be shot on sight.
@Padraig O’Brien:
Dogs and owners!
@Padraig O’Brien: Step up then, big man.
People always come out with the same old argument, it’s not the dog it’s the owner. That’s bs, a pit bull was bred to fight bulls. They are large, dangerous animals. They aren’t pets. They should be completely banned along with many other dangerous breeds
Scrotes shouldn’t be allowed own dogs
Dogs, regardless of their breed, are inherently, resilient, forgiving, loyal and loving with the right owners and proper socialization and training. This breed of dog are dying in their droves, in very brutal manners, at the hands of thugs once the ban came in. Shelters will be overrun by the owners kind and human enough to hand them over. Banning was a disaster for the UK.
@Pauline Gallagher: some breeds are more aggressive than others. They were bred that way. Add to that bite force and power and you get a dangerous breed. That’s why certain breeds need very experienced owners because if if goes wrong, it really goes wrong. Pit bulls can cause serious damage if they attack. The issue is anyone can own a dog. And it’s usually the most irresponsible owners that go for the most dangerous breeds because they want to look like a tough guy. Maybe have legal requirements for owners of certain breeds like having to do a training course with the dog etc.
We can all agree that responsible dog ownership would negate a lot of dog attack incidents.
We can also agree that it will never be enforced and that there will always be a sizeable cohort of owners who simply won’t do what they are supposed to do.
If we can’t stamp out criminal behaviour due to human nature then it’s ridiculous to think we can achieve a dog ownership utopia.
As soon as you accept that, then you have to take practical steps – for me, this isn’t a complicated process:
1) Will all owners be responsible? – No
2) If they will not, then will there always be dog attacks? Yes
3) if there will always be dog attacks, are some dogs physically capable of inflicting a lot of damage? Yes
4) For that type of dog, does the benefit to society from allowing them outweigh the possible risk to human life?
For me, the answer to question 4 has to be No. there are plenty of other dogs that people can own and thus derive the benefits of dog ownership.
Will smaller breeds attack – yes, as mentioned there’s no way to totally stop it but, at least they are less likely to inflict serious damage due to their size.
We have no problem with maintaining a gun ban in Ireland – why? Because we don’t think the benefits to society from allowing gun ownership outweighs the risks that come with it.
Dogs who were historically bred for fighting and aggressive traits should not be treated any differently.
Society would be in no way worse off if everyone owned a Japanese spitz instead of a Tosa.
@Wombleman: Well reasoned.
Root issue is the owner, not the dog… too many useless owners that literally don’t train their dogs, especially in socialising.
Be great if having a dog requires a licence of competency, just like driving, before they’re allowed to own a dog…
A dog weighting upwards of 57k is not a pet. They should be muzzled at all times or destroyed
@Mark Smyth: Isn’t it more their teeth and bite power than their size?
Bigger dogs are usually the most gentle ones and step out of their way to avoid provoking other dogs. Also, the bigger the head, the brighter the dog and the more likely the creature is to be able to control themselves and learn from training.
@F Fitzgerald: Is the stone you live under, heavy?
Bad owners, bad owners, bad owners. That’s it.
@Jason Walsh: No. It isn’t. Educate yourself.
Well-meaning but misguided article. Which is easier, educate dog owners who don’t want to be educated, or ban the dogs? Which is easier to enforce?
I met a lady on the beach recently with her XL bully. The nicest friendly dog you could meet. Of course, I know they are not all like this. It’s how they are brought up, no different to people in society
@Jo Jo: Nonsense, sadly. Educate yourself on this breed.
I am a recreational cyclist. It’s amazing how dogs can detect my approach by acute hearing. Mostly they bark from inside their boundary fence.
I’ve been bitten twice – one bite. The thing is a dogs front teeth (upper and lower) make 4 deep holes which automatically causes infection (cellulitis)
One occasion I was brought down in a collision by a Labrador which rushed out to chase the cyclist in front of me.
have your say