(OP/ED) Marijuana legalization may damage Canadian economy

[LMSx]

Marijuana may cause Canada's economic comedown
A thriving marijuana industry has aided Canada's economy – but political shifts in the US and at home are now threatening this
* Douglas Haddow

If you've been paying attention to some of the more peculiar side-effects of the global recession, you may have noticed that Canadians have been behaving uncharacteristically uppity of late. This new-found swagger is a result of Canada having the dubious distinction of being the "least-bad-rich-world-economy" – an honour that would be rather unimpressive if the rest of the G8 wasn't so persistently gloom-stricken.

While most wealthy economies are still stagnant, in decline or disrepair, the Canadian economy has outpaced allcomers and will avoid the possibility of a double-dip recession that continues to haunt the US. But beyond the chorus of self-congratulatory backslapping coming from Ottawa, there has emerged a new and immediate threat of economic crisis that is being willfully ignored by Canadian politicians.

This November, in an effort to increase tax revenue, California will hold a referendum on whether or not to legalise the cultivation and use of marijuana. If passed, the change in law would be devastating to the Canadian economy, halting the flow of billions of dollars from the US into Canada and eventually forcing hundreds of thousands into unemployment.

Over the past 20 years, Canada has developed a substantial and highly profitable marijuana industry that is almost completely dependent on the US market. Between 60 and 90% of the marijuana produced domestically is exported to the US via cross-border smuggling operations. It's exactly like the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s, only far more sophisticated and more profitable. The establishment of a legal industry based in the US would likely cripple these exports overnight.

Due to its contraband nature, it's difficult to determine exactly how much marijuana contributes to the Canadian economy, but a number of agencies and economists have estimated that it is in the range of $20bn per year (£12.5bn), making it Canada's single largest agricultural product. The bulk of production is based in British Columbia, where it employs a labour force of 250,000, roughly one in 14 adults. Although strict financial controls are often credited as the source of Canada's economic resilience, it's worth pointing out that marijuana production often insulates communities from larger economic phenomenon.

My hometown, Nelson, British Columbia, is an example of such a community. After the lumber industry entered into decline, Nelson was able to make the transition from a typical rural lumber town into a thriving arts and mountain sports hotbed, due in part to the wealth generated by marijuana growers. If one were to have spent the last three years in this idyllic mountain hamlet, the economic crisis would have been barely noticeable.

All over Canada there are comparable situations. Countless cities, including major centres like Vancouver, would have been far worse off if marijuana cultivation hadn't filled the employment vacuum left by declining resource-based industries.

But the current system only works if it exists in contrast to American prohibition. If Californians vote to legalise, the only way for Canada to avoid taking a massive economic hit would be to follow suit, legalising on a national level and taxing the industry a la tobacco or alcohol.

Ironically, support for legalisation is stronger in Canada than it is in California. Canada's most prominent rightwing thinktanks have long supported legalisation, as do the majority of Canadians. But since the Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, formed a minority government in 2006, drug reform has been wiped off the agenda and the gears have grinded into reverse. In a bizarre twist that defies all rational thought, the Conservatives have decided they want to go in the opposite direction of the Canadian voter and emulate outdated Republican drug war policies that have already proved catastrophic in the US.

The Conservatives have proposed legislation that would introduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for marijuana producers. If passed, the legislation would result in spending billions in order to put more people in prison – the exact scenario that lead California into severe debt and towards legalisation. Even more stupefying, police in Montreal recently raided a "compassion centre" that legally distributes medicinal cannabis, and Conservative politicians have started calling for medicinal centres to be shut down across the country.

Meanwhile, the Liberal opposition, who when still in power tabled a decriminalisation bill, have rolled onto their bellies and supported Harper's crackdown on pot. It's a startling departure from the situation seven years ago, when Canada was a global leader in marijuana reform. Back then, there was the political will and the only obstacle to progress was the Bush administration.

But the only government worth blaming today is our own. What the world will get from Canada now is a demonstration of what to avoid – the spectacle of a nation intentionally sabotaging itself for reasons that don't even deserve to be labelled ideological. Looks like we might get that double dip after all.
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Next stop: WTO trade wars!

[aerius]

Maybe I inhaled too much reefer smoke in my youth, but I'm not seeing how legalization in California means Canada must legalize or see its pot industry go bust. As far as I know, most of the pot in California is either locally grown or shipped in from Mexico these days, with only a relatively small amount coming in from Canada. Unless California's the start of a mass marijuana legalization wave in the US, I'm not seeing how it's going to kill our pot industry.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I call bullshit. LSMx, please source your article, because I detect the heady scent of peeled, rolled and smoked Onion.

[Phantasee]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... try-canada
That appears to be his source. At the same time, the thread should be labelled as an Opinion piece.

[LMSx]

I call bullshit. LSMx, please source your article, because I detect the heady scent of peeled, rolled and smoked Onion.

Phantasee got it. That was lazy work on my part. Could a mod tack on "op-ed" to the title?

[Lagmonster]

I call bullshit. LSMx, please source your article, because I detect the heady scent of peeled, rolled and smoked Onion.

Phantasee got it. That was lazy work on my part. Could a mod tack on "op-ed" to the title?

Done.

[Solauren]

I call bullshit. LSMx, please source your article, because I detect the heady scent of peeled, rolled and smoked Onion.

Phantasee got it. That was lazy work on my part. Could a mod tack on "op-ed" to the title?

Done.

Probably from the same place everyone else that rights a piece with bullshit fact comes from.

Out of the bull's ass.

[aerius]

Back on track, I work at AgriCulture Canada - let's just say I'm aware of the trade statistics, and if I had the author in front of me, I'd be asking him rather pointedly for his source for that 'Canada's biggest agricultural export' bullshit.

The $20 billion figure comes from some wonk at the Fraser Institute who assumed that all the weed is being sold at top level retail prices. Since a lot of the pot is for export we need to use wholesale prices and that brings the total down a lot, I'd guess it's somewhere in the $5-10 billion range.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Unless California's the start of a mass marijuana legalization wave in the US, I'm not seeing how it's going to kill our pot industry.

It is, Generation X is reaching voting age, they're equally as large a demographic as their parents (the baby boomers), so in the next decade or two you're going to be seeing a big shift to the left in terms of politics.

[General Zod]

Unless California's the start of a mass marijuana legalization wave in the US, I'm not seeing how it's going to kill our pot industry.

It is, Generation X is reaching voting age, they're equally as large a demographic as their parents (the baby boomers), so in the next decade or two you're going to be seeing a big shift to the left in terms of politics.

What? Pretty much everyone in Generation X reached voting age about ten years ago.

[Phantasee]

I'm pretty sure he means Gen Y? My youngest cousins who barely fit Gen Y are sixteen. Two years.

Of course Schatz is too optimistic. I'm a member of the provincial Tory party and believe me, the politics of the parents influences a lot more kids than you think.

[General Zod]

I'm pretty sure he means Gen Y? My youngest cousins who barely fit Gen Y are sixteen. Two years.

Of course Schatz is too optimistic. I'm a member of the provincial Tory party and believe me, the politics of the parents influences a lot more kids than you think.

Gen Y's parents weren't baby boomers.

[Akumz Razor]

Gen Y has reached voting age while Gen X is reaching the age where they will be able to exert power and influence, taking the reigns away from the baby boomers.

For what it worth, I'm early Gen Y and my mom is a boomer while my dad was born pre-boom.

[Stofsk]

I'm pretty sure he means Gen Y? My youngest cousins who barely fit Gen Y are sixteen. Two years.

Of course Schatz is too optimistic. I'm a member of the provincial Tory party and believe me, the politics of the parents influences a lot more kids than you think.

Gen Y's parents weren't baby boomers.

What are you talking about? My parents were born in the post-war boom period and I was born in the early 80s. Gen Y is considered to be from 1980's to 2000's.

[General Zod]

I'm pretty sure he means Gen Y? My youngest cousins who barely fit Gen Y are sixteen. Two years.

Of course Schatz is too optimistic. I'm a member of the provincial Tory party and believe me, the politics of the parents influences a lot more kids than you think.

Gen Y's parents weren't baby boomers.

What are you talking about? My parents were born in the post-war boom period and I was born in the early 80s. Gen Y is considered to be from 1980's to 2000's.

Eh. In any case he can't be talking about Gen X.

[Kanastrous]

It's an aside but where do we go after Generation Z?

Generation AA?

[Terralthra]

Based on what I hear in my (multigenerational) office, the Generation-Y label has been largely superseded by "Millenials."

[Kanastrous]

Too many syllables.

'Generation M,' maybe.

[Akumz Razor]

Most everyone I know born in the 80s refer to themselves as Generation Y. I only hear "millenials" used by older adults describing kids born in the 90s, similar to the way the word "tween" is used.

[Terralthra]

Too many syllables.

'Generation M,' maybe.

Sorry, I was unclear. What is in this thread called "Generation Y" is called by people I interact with "Millenials."

As I was born in the early 80s, and came of age near the turn of the millenium, I am roughly the eldest of the Millenials.

[Kanastrous]

...and 'Millenials' has fewer syllables than 'Generation M,' anyway. Because I can't count.

[Phantasee]

Gen X are the children of the Lost Generation (or were they Silent?). The ones between the Greatest and the Boomers. They're few in number, whereas GenY is an echo of the boomers.

[kouchpotato]

I thought the Baby Boomers came directly after the Greatest generation... or am I confused here?

[Kanastrous]

Me too, I thought that all the Greatest Generationers getting Greatly Biz-ay after WWII is what spawned us the Boomers...

[Lagmonster]

First off, generations are defined by culture. In the West, they have different generation lists than elsewhere.

Second off, there's no official list of generations. It's all pretty stupid, since lots of people are born in a "generation" but displays cultural characteristics of a former or later one.

The list looks something like this, and the dates sometimes overlap because as said, culture doesn't always stick:

The Lost Generation: People who fought in World War I.
The Greatest Generation: People who fought in WWII (born 1901 - 1924)
The Silent Generation: People born 1925 - 1945
The Baby Boom Generation: People born 1946 - 1964
Generation X: People born after the boom, 1961 - 1981
Generation Y (Generation Next, Millennials, Echo Boomers): People born 1975 - 2002
Generation Z (Generation I, Internet Generation): People born 1995 - Present