Moratoriums on licenses are great, for the incumbents. Everyone else loses while the license holders now have a paper asset that immediately becomes very valuable.
Don't believe the current license holders and their sycophants, they are just chasing the Canadian dream of rent seeking.
You don't want cannabis retail licenses to turn into dairy quota, taxi licenses, or the Beer Store unless you want everyone to get ripped off into perpetuity.
An editorial comment: given the (racist) history of the word "marijuana", it'd have been nice to see it eschewed here. I really appreciate that Canada has leaned _hard_ into the word cannabis instead.
This is an interesting piece that I think intersects with earlier pieces on housing. In both cases, people who live in a neighbourhood have a lot of influence on what is allowed in that neighbourhood via zoning and vocal complaints. It's probably worth considering if that should be and, if so, to what degree.
I own a home (well, I own a chunk along with the bank!) so I get the motivation. One's property is often your biggest "investment" so you are very concerned with its value. And, if the surrounding neighbourhood changes in ways you don't like, moving is a not-insignificant barrier in terms of cost and time.
On the other hand, I didn't buy my whole neighbourhood. And, other stakeholders might be impacted by what happens in my neighbourhood but don't have as much influence. Think of potential buyers/renters of higher density housing that hasn't been built yet. Or customers to retails spaces that don't live nearby. Is it fair that I get an outsized voice in what happens in my neighbourhood. And, if not -- what's the remedy?
This seems to be a foundational problem for urban life and mostly what I've seen as a solution is that municipalities should take a more hands-off approach (as advocated here). Maybe we need a culture change about what property ownership should -- and should not -- entitle one to.
Tony, your comment really got me thinking about my own inconsistencies on this topic. On the one hand, reading this article, I also concluded that attempting to limit weed shops makes for poor policy and that it is best left to the market to sort it out. On the other hand, I have believed for some time that people should have a voice into how their own neighborhoods develop. I don't consider it NIMBYism to care about the quality of life in my own neighborhood. We are a democracy and we should exercise our democratic rights to influence issues that are closest to home. And while my voice should not outweigh the voice of my neighbors, our collective voice should influence what happens. But I am still stuck with why that should be the case for housing development and not the case for weed shops. I think it has to do with a long standing observation that housing development, done without government regulation or planning, ends up creating a worse outcome than housing development with regulation. Go to parts of the world with little to no planning regulations on development and compare them to parts of the world where they actually plan. And the reasons for this exception to the "markets know best" rule lies with externalities. Costs that accrue to everyone and not the party that receives the benefit. They are a common problem in many private markets. Often they are too small to override that markets are the most effective means to allocate resources. That appears to be the case with pot shops. What really is the externality that there are too many pot shops on a street ? For housing though, the externalities to runaway development are many and significant; over capacity of the local road network, to the point of not being able to get around at all, reduced or oversubscribed park space, oversubscribed local school space, oversubscribed hospital space. For these reasons I think planning housing development using the inputs of local citizenry, is better than a market knows best approach.
PT, I follow your [please pardon the descriptive] "utopian" approach to city planning: allow, nay, encourage, regulation on housing but not on cannabis shops.
I absolutely understand your distinction between the two and I agree that we don't want uncontrolled development right next to our homes, again for the reasons that you enumerate. The problem is that once you set out on the path of what is "reasonable" in respect of housing it very quickly takes us down that same path to "too many, too close together" of cannabis shops.
My point is simply that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Apologies for using a hackneyed, worn out cliche but it is appropriate, I think.
So, to carry that on further, if you must have regulation on housing - and for the reasons that you enumerate I suppose that even I must have those same regulations - then I first propose that such rules be carefully considered and be terrifically spare. And, just to be clear, I really, really, really don't think that our current zoning and similar rules are anything near my descriptive of "carefully considered and ... terrifically spare." And, always but always remember that someone's ox is going to be gored so accept that sometimes it is your ox. [quite the metaphor, no?]
My nearest community struggles along with 702 adult residents and quite a few run-down commercial storefronts. The voters have now allowed pot shops. Two have opened and another two may be about to. There is very little evidence that business is booming. The free (or discounted) rent periods will run out. Ultimately there will be one survivor. The town will go on, with one laundromat, one Timmie’s, one Home Hardware, one liquor store, one beer store, one grocery store, one sub shop, one dollar store, one Chinese restaurant, one pizza place, and one pot shop making less than any of them. Market forces at work.
Btw, I returned to Amsterdam a few years ago after not being there for quite some time. The “coffee shops” are all gone. Even in the music core of the city, you won’t smell a whiff indoors or out. The thrill is gone.
Which, other than not throwing our teenagers in prison, is the whole point of legalization.
Calgary has a great many, almost as common as nail salons, albeit with more clever names. Like private liquor stores in Alberta, competition and agglomeration will weed out many. Haven’t heard anyone aghast about the numbers of outlets, more are amused. Opening one is certainly not a guarantee of wealth. Never have seen a line up at any when driving past. In speaking with those who use recreationally or medicinally, they often know someone who has a decades long standing reputation on quality and price and they are quite happy to continue with those folks.
You can't find a better example of an industry that needs little regulation than at a Vancouver 4/20. There, some 200 mom-and-pop basement grows (many of them *literally* mom-and-pop) set up booths and willing sellers meet willing buyers, with all product information up front (try some); with no profit angle in lowering quality, as with coffee shops or wine bars.
You could see all that while that insane stock-run happened. It was clearly based on the assumption that government would be used to freeze out all the mom-and-pop competitors, raise barriers to entry until only the best-funded and connected insiders could take over. I'd rarely felt such a sense of "natural ruling class" that ensures no climbers get in. Otherwise, there'd just be zero reason for those huge stock valuations, you have to have an oligopoly to make the profits to justify the stock.
Why Libertarians didn't make a Cause out of it, I have no idea. It's perfect for them.
We've gone from a situation where it's illegal to sell it at all, to where the continuing illegal sales are what's holding the price down to merely high instead of absurd. Yes, the old *illegal* price, high to compensate the vendor for risk of jail, is lower than the Big Industry price. Can you imagine, say, roses, from a tiny private greenhouse, where the owner needed compensation for risks, costing less than roses from a large, commercial operation?
And the comically high prices, to return to topic, are why there are so many pot shops. The basic product costs about the same, per pound, to grow, as arugula. The rest is profit.
Actually, Roy, you miss something in your pricing analysis.
What you miss is government - with a capital G, of course. The reason that prices are so high is that government is insisting on it's cut of the product pricing, just as government does with liquor pricing.
Luckily for me, I am not a consumer of cannabis and barely a consumer of the liquid stuff so my contribution to the government take is minuscule.
So, if anyone wants to complain about pricing at local [legally run] cannabis outlets, blame the governments. The curiosity is that [I understand, at least] one of the stated purposes of legalization of cannabis - drive the "black market" out of business - simply hasn't occurred. On the other hand, the other purpose, that of vast government tax revenue, also hasn't occurred as the tax revenue is pretty anemic. Once more, government projections have proven to be "flawed." Covid projections proved as accurate as government cannabis revenue projections.
What a refreshingly succinct and accurate assessment from someone who, if memory serves, has no formal training in economics, but has observed the economic effect of regulation.
It is amusing to watch conservatives blame the government for the economy then blame the government for getting involved in the economy. The one thing the government should be doing is discouraging monopoly, not fostering it. The pot business is where local businesses should be allowed to flourish instead it is regulated into the hands of a few businesses.
This is off topic, but the discussion here illustrates exactly why having a comments section has value. It expands the topic into something much broader and adds some actual nuance. As a consequence, there is actual food for thought.
On the same comments topic, isn’t removing individual comments an expression of wokeness? If a comment by Marylou is taken down because it might offend someone, is it reasonable to suggest that her freedom of expression is being denied because “the brass” is being politically correct? And if comments are no longer allowed, is it for the same reason – that of being woke? (unlike that hero of the unwoke – Elon Musk)
First of all, freedom of expression is freedom from government interference in citizens self-expression. It's not an absolute right (hate speech, for example). It doesn't apply to other institutions. Morover, it provides no guarantee of an audience. In all the kerfufle around "cancel culture" that seems to get lost. You can say what you want (within certain limits) and the government won't stop you. But, nobody has a obligation to listen to you or provide you with a platform or audience.
This platform was created by Matt and Jen. They put a lot of work into creating and curating content and have successfully created something that attracts an audience. It's their space to do with what they want. Moreover, it's a business, so either commenting adds to the business (e.g. right now, it's only available to subscribers) or it probably needs to go.
As a reader and commentor, the comment section is most interesting to me when commentors stick to the arguements (no personal attacks) and build off the article. I agree -- that adds value to me as a reader and makes me more engaged with the site. But, when it starts to get into personal attacks and repetitive partisan talking points -- well, I don't see much value in that. Fortunately, I can usually just scan for the interesting bits, but Matt pointed out, they have to read all of them and do some level of moderation. That's time they could obviously be spending doing something else. And, my experience is that without some moderation, the sniping takes over.
The great irony of the modern concern around freedom of expression is we've never lived in an age where regular people have access to so many tools to both express themselves and build an audience. Anybody can start a Substack; if some of the commentors here don't like the moderation, they can literally open up shop next door and set whatever rules they like. But, you then they will have to do the hard work of building an audience!
I agree with everything that you say, but it doesn’t actually address my questions. I am anything but an expert on woke, but what Matt is doing is expecting people to self-censor and is taking the responsibility of removing what they write when they don’t. Freedom warriors take exception when sites like Twitter and Facebook do the same thing and they use woke to describe what they believe is an infringement on freedom. They are being cancelled.
My view is that everyone who accepts that those who comment here should self censor and Matt should hold us to account when we do not can legitimately be described as woke. To the degree that that is true and we acknowledge it, we should be hesitant to use the term as a general pejorative to describe the actions and decisions of others.
I think maybe you need to define how you are using the term "woke" here. That, and "freedom warriors". It appears you seem to be advocating that freedom of expression includes to freedom from consequences, which isn't what that freedom protects.
I will define freedom warrior as someone who argues that freedom should be absolute. The demographic would include those who are elated that Elon Musk intends to eliminate controls on what is said on Twitter. And any curtailment of that right is wokism. To be free, one should have the right to say what they want about others and push completely false narratives – if anything is done to hinder them from doing so, they are being cancelled by the woke. For anyone holding this view, any restriction of freedom is woke – and there is a chance that the one doing the restriction will be accused of being a communist, a socialist, and/or a dictator.
I think that Matt is being entirely reasonable in expecting people to self censor and in deleting comments that don’t meet his standards. If he and Jen decide to close all comments, so be it The people I describe above, however, could describe all of us as being woke and not be wrong.
If you have a different view on the term I would be very interested in reading it, particularly if you think that it cannot be applied in this case.
The actual, dictionary definition of "woke" is being "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)." I'm one of those wild people who think that might be a good thing :-)
There is obviously a other, negative use of the term, which I was trying to pull out of you, which you've come back with "any restriction of freedom is woke." So lets work with that as I think its a pretty accurate representation of how a group of people might use it.
I'm reading between the lines here, but if I'm following you, your concern is that any guidelines for behavours the comments -- any restrictions -- will mean The Line could be accused of being 'woke' by those who feel "any restrictions of freedom is woke." I think the right question is -- is that a valid criticism and, if not, who cares?
As I've outlined previously, I don't think its a valid criticism. There is not place I know of where there is not *any* restrictions on freedom. Moreover, there is no expectation of unlimited freedom in other people's spaces in Canada -- whether that's a retail store or an online space (like this) hosted by somebody else. Nobody has -- as a right -- access to a platform and an audience built by others for their speech. It isn't a thing, no matter how loudly some people seem to think it is.
So -- I guess I'm saying: yes -- it's entirely possible some people will balk at any restrictions of behaviour in The LIne comment section (and in the world). And, I think they're wrong! Can't make everyone happy!
As an addendum -- what I do love about the comments is they often force me to really think through what I think on an issue. This is a great example -- it was kind of fun to put into words something I believe. So -- thanks!
No thanks necessary. Trying to articulate an idea in such a way that it might offer food for thought and being challenged on it is generally well worth my time. I appreciate what you have shared - and not only because my views align very closely with yours.
Although your interpretation of my intent makes sense, it wasn’t that which drove my questions. I have encountered the woke term more on this site than anywhere else and it is invariably used in a negative fashion. Correctly or incorrectly, it implies to me that the user feels superior because they don’t see themselves as woke.
But everyone who participates here is expected to be woke – and rightly so. And if we all recognize that, maybe it will make us a little more woke (using your definition) about using the label as a pejorative.
I wish this article had more information/statistics. I count over 30 pot shops in my town - in contrast to our 4 LCBOs - and wonder if it might be a business ripe for money laundering. Where are the stats for consumption? what % of people use them? How much is bought on-line versus in person? for an average user, what's the yearly consumption? because seriously, I want to understand why, when you look on the streets (and the near-empty parking lots), demand seems so high.
Only one LCBO and two merchants of weed in my little town. Not sure how well the weed merchants are faring. A 6 minute drive from the main corners of my town and you find yourself in the countryside. Don't really think it's a coincidence since the Government passed a "grow your own" plan, that our agriculture population appears to be much happier, more mellow in nature. I swear in the last few years, there seems to be an upswing in farmers waving to each other, while driving the dusty back roads. Yep waving from the front seat and back seat of their automobiles. It is also not a coincidence that sales of chips, chocolate bars and frozen pizzas etc., appear to the casual observer to be trending on the upside at the local variety store. There is somewhat of an upside in legalizing weed, Variety Store locations have nearly tripled in our little town. Pot Shops still remain at two.
smdd, please consider that many of those shops will be broke and gone within a relatively short time.
I live in Alberta and it was quite a sight when we first allowed private liquor sales. It seemed that there were liquor stores everywhere and I could not understand the economics of an industry that allowed so many shops to proliferate (I was / am an accountant - albeit, now retired so I thought that I should be able to understand!).
Actually, it turned out that I absolutely did understand the economics properly and ever so many of those liquor stores quickly went out of business. When cannabis was legalized for private sale in Alberta much the same thing occurred and there were ever so many cannabis shops. As you might imagine, many of those shops now are no longer in operation and you can be sure that there will be a further shakeout.
So, getting back to your plaint, you can expect that those thirty shops will winnow down to a lesser number; you should hope that the landlords were sufficiently prudent to ensure that they were properly protected and you should consider what business you might wish to start as there likely will be some pretty good retail space opening up in the near future.
To sum up my post more briefly, suppose it was very onerous and difficult to be permitted to sell arugula. But, having jumped the hoops, you were allowed to put "Ultramarine Valhalla Zombie" on the arugula, and sell arugula for $35. PER GRAM.
There are many businesses that are ripe for money laundering, from comic book stores to car washes to even home renovation businesses. That a business could be used for money laundering isn't reason enough to restrict that business.
The west has fallen in love with the free enterprise system ( or capitalist, if you please ) and with good reason. We don't have to have government interceding in things they are often ignorant of and potentially screwing them up. Some things however do not lend themselves well to a free enterprise system and it is important to understand the exceptions.
The limits to the system are that the consumer of the product or service has to understand what they are buying, the price has to include any long term consequence to society as a whole, and the consumer has to have a choice to buy or not to buy.
Marijauna is a drug with psychoactive effects and legalization has artificially placed it outside of the framework of the usual regulatory system. It was unfair that it was considered a class 1 drug previously but legalization would seem to be a knee jerk political action rather than a rational judgement. It might have been better if it had been classified as an over the counter medication or by prescription. It does occasionally result in problems, for example if your 9 year old eats your bag of THC gummy bears. It is also the subject of as lot of sensationalistic quackery that describes it as the cure for all things.
We are however, where we are. Pandora's box has been opened and we are not getting a second chance.
Plato, as I remember, did not give democracy an unqualified endorsement. Populists are by definition democratic but you seldom get the most technically correct solution from them. This gets back to the issue that the voter has to understand the long term impacts of what they are buying. Thanks to the tides of disinformation in the media, we can get less than perfect solutions.
Ultimately, the voter gets an opportunity to live out the impact of their choices, then 'throw the bums out' if they don't like the outcome. Slow, but an effective way to build consensus (at least for a while).
Not all actions that taken by a government can be reversed easily, no matter how damaging. The Wynne Liberals ended up contracting a lot of very expensive renewable power on 20 year contracts that Ontario is stuck with. The Site "C" dam and Muskrat Falls power will take a lot of time to pay off and seems largely to be a mistake. Sometimes the bums need to be thrown out quickly before they do more damage ie recall legislation.
The power of democracy is that voters ultimately get impacted by their decisions and, hopefully (!) learn from the experience. There needs to be some pain sometimes. I actually do not believe in recall legislation, particularly in cases like you cited where the policies were not out of line for what people voted for. You buy the ticket, you take the ride!
For a long time after the pain of the early 90s, voters learned that structural deficits were ultimately unpleasant to address, which created a 25-year consensus on budgets. Unfortunately, it appears some lessons need to be relearned from time-to-time, but the quality of your policies (and politics) tends to meet the sum total of the intelligence of the voting public.
Sure, but as a wise man said, to paraphrase, democracy is but the best of a whole host of bad systems. I trust democracy more than some second rate technocrats with ulterior motives to be honest.
I like the idea of democracy, particularly the way the greeks did it. Then again, I am a non-slave land owner and therefore would have been in the demographic to participate. As to your distrust of technocrats, there are certain things I would trust engineers to do better than the average person.
Moratoriums on licenses are great, for the incumbents. Everyone else loses while the license holders now have a paper asset that immediately becomes very valuable.
Don't believe the current license holders and their sycophants, they are just chasing the Canadian dream of rent seeking.
You don't want cannabis retail licenses to turn into dairy quota, taxi licenses, or the Beer Store unless you want everyone to get ripped off into perpetuity.
An editorial comment: given the (racist) history of the word "marijuana", it'd have been nice to see it eschewed here. I really appreciate that Canada has leaned _hard_ into the word cannabis instead.
This is an interesting piece that I think intersects with earlier pieces on housing. In both cases, people who live in a neighbourhood have a lot of influence on what is allowed in that neighbourhood via zoning and vocal complaints. It's probably worth considering if that should be and, if so, to what degree.
I own a home (well, I own a chunk along with the bank!) so I get the motivation. One's property is often your biggest "investment" so you are very concerned with its value. And, if the surrounding neighbourhood changes in ways you don't like, moving is a not-insignificant barrier in terms of cost and time.
On the other hand, I didn't buy my whole neighbourhood. And, other stakeholders might be impacted by what happens in my neighbourhood but don't have as much influence. Think of potential buyers/renters of higher density housing that hasn't been built yet. Or customers to retails spaces that don't live nearby. Is it fair that I get an outsized voice in what happens in my neighbourhood. And, if not -- what's the remedy?
This seems to be a foundational problem for urban life and mostly what I've seen as a solution is that municipalities should take a more hands-off approach (as advocated here). Maybe we need a culture change about what property ownership should -- and should not -- entitle one to.
Tony, your comment really got me thinking about my own inconsistencies on this topic. On the one hand, reading this article, I also concluded that attempting to limit weed shops makes for poor policy and that it is best left to the market to sort it out. On the other hand, I have believed for some time that people should have a voice into how their own neighborhoods develop. I don't consider it NIMBYism to care about the quality of life in my own neighborhood. We are a democracy and we should exercise our democratic rights to influence issues that are closest to home. And while my voice should not outweigh the voice of my neighbors, our collective voice should influence what happens. But I am still stuck with why that should be the case for housing development and not the case for weed shops. I think it has to do with a long standing observation that housing development, done without government regulation or planning, ends up creating a worse outcome than housing development with regulation. Go to parts of the world with little to no planning regulations on development and compare them to parts of the world where they actually plan. And the reasons for this exception to the "markets know best" rule lies with externalities. Costs that accrue to everyone and not the party that receives the benefit. They are a common problem in many private markets. Often they are too small to override that markets are the most effective means to allocate resources. That appears to be the case with pot shops. What really is the externality that there are too many pot shops on a street ? For housing though, the externalities to runaway development are many and significant; over capacity of the local road network, to the point of not being able to get around at all, reduced or oversubscribed park space, oversubscribed local school space, oversubscribed hospital space. For these reasons I think planning housing development using the inputs of local citizenry, is better than a market knows best approach.
PT, I follow your [please pardon the descriptive] "utopian" approach to city planning: allow, nay, encourage, regulation on housing but not on cannabis shops.
I absolutely understand your distinction between the two and I agree that we don't want uncontrolled development right next to our homes, again for the reasons that you enumerate. The problem is that once you set out on the path of what is "reasonable" in respect of housing it very quickly takes us down that same path to "too many, too close together" of cannabis shops.
My point is simply that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Apologies for using a hackneyed, worn out cliche but it is appropriate, I think.
So, to carry that on further, if you must have regulation on housing - and for the reasons that you enumerate I suppose that even I must have those same regulations - then I first propose that such rules be carefully considered and be terrifically spare. And, just to be clear, I really, really, really don't think that our current zoning and similar rules are anything near my descriptive of "carefully considered and ... terrifically spare." And, always but always remember that someone's ox is going to be gored so accept that sometimes it is your ox. [quite the metaphor, no?]
My nearest community struggles along with 702 adult residents and quite a few run-down commercial storefronts. The voters have now allowed pot shops. Two have opened and another two may be about to. There is very little evidence that business is booming. The free (or discounted) rent periods will run out. Ultimately there will be one survivor. The town will go on, with one laundromat, one Timmie’s, one Home Hardware, one liquor store, one beer store, one grocery store, one sub shop, one dollar store, one Chinese restaurant, one pizza place, and one pot shop making less than any of them. Market forces at work.
Btw, I returned to Amsterdam a few years ago after not being there for quite some time. The “coffee shops” are all gone. Even in the music core of the city, you won’t smell a whiff indoors or out. The thrill is gone.
Which, other than not throwing our teenagers in prison, is the whole point of legalization.
Calgary has a great many, almost as common as nail salons, albeit with more clever names. Like private liquor stores in Alberta, competition and agglomeration will weed out many. Haven’t heard anyone aghast about the numbers of outlets, more are amused. Opening one is certainly not a guarantee of wealth. Never have seen a line up at any when driving past. In speaking with those who use recreationally or medicinally, they often know someone who has a decades long standing reputation on quality and price and they are quite happy to continue with those folks.
You can't find a better example of an industry that needs little regulation than at a Vancouver 4/20. There, some 200 mom-and-pop basement grows (many of them *literally* mom-and-pop) set up booths and willing sellers meet willing buyers, with all product information up front (try some); with no profit angle in lowering quality, as with coffee shops or wine bars.
You could see all that while that insane stock-run happened. It was clearly based on the assumption that government would be used to freeze out all the mom-and-pop competitors, raise barriers to entry until only the best-funded and connected insiders could take over. I'd rarely felt such a sense of "natural ruling class" that ensures no climbers get in. Otherwise, there'd just be zero reason for those huge stock valuations, you have to have an oligopoly to make the profits to justify the stock.
Why Libertarians didn't make a Cause out of it, I have no idea. It's perfect for them.
We've gone from a situation where it's illegal to sell it at all, to where the continuing illegal sales are what's holding the price down to merely high instead of absurd. Yes, the old *illegal* price, high to compensate the vendor for risk of jail, is lower than the Big Industry price. Can you imagine, say, roses, from a tiny private greenhouse, where the owner needed compensation for risks, costing less than roses from a large, commercial operation?
And the comically high prices, to return to topic, are why there are so many pot shops. The basic product costs about the same, per pound, to grow, as arugula. The rest is profit.
Actually, Roy, you miss something in your pricing analysis.
What you miss is government - with a capital G, of course. The reason that prices are so high is that government is insisting on it's cut of the product pricing, just as government does with liquor pricing.
Luckily for me, I am not a consumer of cannabis and barely a consumer of the liquid stuff so my contribution to the government take is minuscule.
So, if anyone wants to complain about pricing at local [legally run] cannabis outlets, blame the governments. The curiosity is that [I understand, at least] one of the stated purposes of legalization of cannabis - drive the "black market" out of business - simply hasn't occurred. On the other hand, the other purpose, that of vast government tax revenue, also hasn't occurred as the tax revenue is pretty anemic. Once more, government projections have proven to be "flawed." Covid projections proved as accurate as government cannabis revenue projections.
ahhhh. insane profit margins! Now I understand the phenomenon more. Thanks
What a refreshingly succinct and accurate assessment from someone who, if memory serves, has no formal training in economics, but has observed the economic effect of regulation.
One MacroEcon 201 in 1977; I can still define "marginal propensity to consume".
But, mainly, "I can tell a hawk from handsaw", and this call is dead-stupid obvious.
...a growing 'panic' over the number of marijuana stores in Toronto."
...If only Nova Scotia had that problem :-p. Government-run stores only (and precious few of them), with shitty weed to boot!
What's the point of an Atlantic politician who can't create jobs for the boys?
I agree. I've already been mentioning to people that complain in Ottawa that the market will sort itself out in a few years.
It is amusing to watch conservatives blame the government for the economy then blame the government for getting involved in the economy. The one thing the government should be doing is discouraging monopoly, not fostering it. The pot business is where local businesses should be allowed to flourish instead it is regulated into the hands of a few businesses.
It's a little more awkward in small town land. There is one day care, one public, one main street, and the pot shop is in the middle.
Moral scruples continue to exist around location.
Maybe it's better out in the open and there is no need to worry.
This is off topic, but the discussion here illustrates exactly why having a comments section has value. It expands the topic into something much broader and adds some actual nuance. As a consequence, there is actual food for thought.
On the same comments topic, isn’t removing individual comments an expression of wokeness? If a comment by Marylou is taken down because it might offend someone, is it reasonable to suggest that her freedom of expression is being denied because “the brass” is being politically correct? And if comments are no longer allowed, is it for the same reason – that of being woke? (unlike that hero of the unwoke – Elon Musk)
First of all, freedom of expression is freedom from government interference in citizens self-expression. It's not an absolute right (hate speech, for example). It doesn't apply to other institutions. Morover, it provides no guarantee of an audience. In all the kerfufle around "cancel culture" that seems to get lost. You can say what you want (within certain limits) and the government won't stop you. But, nobody has a obligation to listen to you or provide you with a platform or audience.
This platform was created by Matt and Jen. They put a lot of work into creating and curating content and have successfully created something that attracts an audience. It's their space to do with what they want. Moreover, it's a business, so either commenting adds to the business (e.g. right now, it's only available to subscribers) or it probably needs to go.
As a reader and commentor, the comment section is most interesting to me when commentors stick to the arguements (no personal attacks) and build off the article. I agree -- that adds value to me as a reader and makes me more engaged with the site. But, when it starts to get into personal attacks and repetitive partisan talking points -- well, I don't see much value in that. Fortunately, I can usually just scan for the interesting bits, but Matt pointed out, they have to read all of them and do some level of moderation. That's time they could obviously be spending doing something else. And, my experience is that without some moderation, the sniping takes over.
The great irony of the modern concern around freedom of expression is we've never lived in an age where regular people have access to so many tools to both express themselves and build an audience. Anybody can start a Substack; if some of the commentors here don't like the moderation, they can literally open up shop next door and set whatever rules they like. But, you then they will have to do the hard work of building an audience!
I agree with everything that you say, but it doesn’t actually address my questions. I am anything but an expert on woke, but what Matt is doing is expecting people to self-censor and is taking the responsibility of removing what they write when they don’t. Freedom warriors take exception when sites like Twitter and Facebook do the same thing and they use woke to describe what they believe is an infringement on freedom. They are being cancelled.
My view is that everyone who accepts that those who comment here should self censor and Matt should hold us to account when we do not can legitimately be described as woke. To the degree that that is true and we acknowledge it, we should be hesitant to use the term as a general pejorative to describe the actions and decisions of others.
I think maybe you need to define how you are using the term "woke" here. That, and "freedom warriors". It appears you seem to be advocating that freedom of expression includes to freedom from consequences, which isn't what that freedom protects.
I will define freedom warrior as someone who argues that freedom should be absolute. The demographic would include those who are elated that Elon Musk intends to eliminate controls on what is said on Twitter. And any curtailment of that right is wokism. To be free, one should have the right to say what they want about others and push completely false narratives – if anything is done to hinder them from doing so, they are being cancelled by the woke. For anyone holding this view, any restriction of freedom is woke – and there is a chance that the one doing the restriction will be accused of being a communist, a socialist, and/or a dictator.
I think that Matt is being entirely reasonable in expecting people to self censor and in deleting comments that don’t meet his standards. If he and Jen decide to close all comments, so be it The people I describe above, however, could describe all of us as being woke and not be wrong.
If you have a different view on the term I would be very interested in reading it, particularly if you think that it cannot be applied in this case.
The actual, dictionary definition of "woke" is being "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)." I'm one of those wild people who think that might be a good thing :-)
There is obviously a other, negative use of the term, which I was trying to pull out of you, which you've come back with "any restriction of freedom is woke." So lets work with that as I think its a pretty accurate representation of how a group of people might use it.
I'm reading between the lines here, but if I'm following you, your concern is that any guidelines for behavours the comments -- any restrictions -- will mean The Line could be accused of being 'woke' by those who feel "any restrictions of freedom is woke." I think the right question is -- is that a valid criticism and, if not, who cares?
As I've outlined previously, I don't think its a valid criticism. There is not place I know of where there is not *any* restrictions on freedom. Moreover, there is no expectation of unlimited freedom in other people's spaces in Canada -- whether that's a retail store or an online space (like this) hosted by somebody else. Nobody has -- as a right -- access to a platform and an audience built by others for their speech. It isn't a thing, no matter how loudly some people seem to think it is.
So -- I guess I'm saying: yes -- it's entirely possible some people will balk at any restrictions of behaviour in The LIne comment section (and in the world). And, I think they're wrong! Can't make everyone happy!
As an addendum -- what I do love about the comments is they often force me to really think through what I think on an issue. This is a great example -- it was kind of fun to put into words something I believe. So -- thanks!
No thanks necessary. Trying to articulate an idea in such a way that it might offer food for thought and being challenged on it is generally well worth my time. I appreciate what you have shared - and not only because my views align very closely with yours.
Although your interpretation of my intent makes sense, it wasn’t that which drove my questions. I have encountered the woke term more on this site than anywhere else and it is invariably used in a negative fashion. Correctly or incorrectly, it implies to me that the user feels superior because they don’t see themselves as woke.
But everyone who participates here is expected to be woke – and rightly so. And if we all recognize that, maybe it will make us a little more woke (using your definition) about using the label as a pejorative.
3 "wokes" That will cost you $300 into the kitty.
I wish this article had more information/statistics. I count over 30 pot shops in my town - in contrast to our 4 LCBOs - and wonder if it might be a business ripe for money laundering. Where are the stats for consumption? what % of people use them? How much is bought on-line versus in person? for an average user, what's the yearly consumption? because seriously, I want to understand why, when you look on the streets (and the near-empty parking lots), demand seems so high.
Only one LCBO and two merchants of weed in my little town. Not sure how well the weed merchants are faring. A 6 minute drive from the main corners of my town and you find yourself in the countryside. Don't really think it's a coincidence since the Government passed a "grow your own" plan, that our agriculture population appears to be much happier, more mellow in nature. I swear in the last few years, there seems to be an upswing in farmers waving to each other, while driving the dusty back roads. Yep waving from the front seat and back seat of their automobiles. It is also not a coincidence that sales of chips, chocolate bars and frozen pizzas etc., appear to the casual observer to be trending on the upside at the local variety store. There is somewhat of an upside in legalizing weed, Variety Store locations have nearly tripled in our little town. Pot Shops still remain at two.
smdd, please consider that many of those shops will be broke and gone within a relatively short time.
I live in Alberta and it was quite a sight when we first allowed private liquor sales. It seemed that there were liquor stores everywhere and I could not understand the economics of an industry that allowed so many shops to proliferate (I was / am an accountant - albeit, now retired so I thought that I should be able to understand!).
Actually, it turned out that I absolutely did understand the economics properly and ever so many of those liquor stores quickly went out of business. When cannabis was legalized for private sale in Alberta much the same thing occurred and there were ever so many cannabis shops. As you might imagine, many of those shops now are no longer in operation and you can be sure that there will be a further shakeout.
So, getting back to your plaint, you can expect that those thirty shops will winnow down to a lesser number; you should hope that the landlords were sufficiently prudent to ensure that they were properly protected and you should consider what business you might wish to start as there likely will be some pretty good retail space opening up in the near future.
To sum up my post more briefly, suppose it was very onerous and difficult to be permitted to sell arugula. But, having jumped the hoops, you were allowed to put "Ultramarine Valhalla Zombie" on the arugula, and sell arugula for $35. PER GRAM.
Now you understand why so many want to do that?
There are many businesses that are ripe for money laundering, from comic book stores to car washes to even home renovation businesses. That a business could be used for money laundering isn't reason enough to restrict that business.
The west has fallen in love with the free enterprise system ( or capitalist, if you please ) and with good reason. We don't have to have government interceding in things they are often ignorant of and potentially screwing them up. Some things however do not lend themselves well to a free enterprise system and it is important to understand the exceptions.
The limits to the system are that the consumer of the product or service has to understand what they are buying, the price has to include any long term consequence to society as a whole, and the consumer has to have a choice to buy or not to buy.
Marijauna is a drug with psychoactive effects and legalization has artificially placed it outside of the framework of the usual regulatory system. It was unfair that it was considered a class 1 drug previously but legalization would seem to be a knee jerk political action rather than a rational judgement. It might have been better if it had been classified as an over the counter medication or by prescription. It does occasionally result in problems, for example if your 9 year old eats your bag of THC gummy bears. It is also the subject of as lot of sensationalistic quackery that describes it as the cure for all things.
We are however, where we are. Pandora's box has been opened and we are not getting a second chance.
Legalization was democracy in action. A majority wanted cannabis legal and voted in a government that ran on that promise.
Plato, as I remember, did not give democracy an unqualified endorsement. Populists are by definition democratic but you seldom get the most technically correct solution from them. This gets back to the issue that the voter has to understand the long term impacts of what they are buying. Thanks to the tides of disinformation in the media, we can get less than perfect solutions.
Ultimately, the voter gets an opportunity to live out the impact of their choices, then 'throw the bums out' if they don't like the outcome. Slow, but an effective way to build consensus (at least for a while).
Not all actions that taken by a government can be reversed easily, no matter how damaging. The Wynne Liberals ended up contracting a lot of very expensive renewable power on 20 year contracts that Ontario is stuck with. The Site "C" dam and Muskrat Falls power will take a lot of time to pay off and seems largely to be a mistake. Sometimes the bums need to be thrown out quickly before they do more damage ie recall legislation.
The power of democracy is that voters ultimately get impacted by their decisions and, hopefully (!) learn from the experience. There needs to be some pain sometimes. I actually do not believe in recall legislation, particularly in cases like you cited where the policies were not out of line for what people voted for. You buy the ticket, you take the ride!
For a long time after the pain of the early 90s, voters learned that structural deficits were ultimately unpleasant to address, which created a 25-year consensus on budgets. Unfortunately, it appears some lessons need to be relearned from time-to-time, but the quality of your policies (and politics) tends to meet the sum total of the intelligence of the voting public.
Sure, but as a wise man said, to paraphrase, democracy is but the best of a whole host of bad systems. I trust democracy more than some second rate technocrats with ulterior motives to be honest.
I like the idea of democracy, particularly the way the greeks did it. Then again, I am a non-slave land owner and therefore would have been in the demographic to participate. As to your distrust of technocrats, there are certain things I would trust engineers to do better than the average person.