comment: >
  
  The goal IS to get shut down. This gives them a case to pursue in court.
  Also Vancouver police is corrupt as hell and doesn't even want to shut them down as they have "other priorities" they want to concentrate on.
  It's up to the feds.
context: And over here, for those who enjoy a nice wholesome bowl of crack, we have our organic, free-range crack. >
  
  Is it gluten free? >
  
  Hilarious, preposterous even. Today the ring collar on my liquor board of ontario bottle of Absolut vodka said gluten free. >
  
  Kettle One is better and isn’t cheap with their E’s >
  
  You mean Ketel One?
  They are cheap with their T's unfortunately. >
  
  True dat >
  
  rue da >
  
  It's done specifically so the Canadian feds show up to shut it down. Apparently this is necessary to audience a challenge on the law on prohibition of hard drugs. Seems insane to me... >
  
  For me the core difference between legalising weed and mushrooms.. pills, etc.. vs things like heroine and cocaine is how addictive they are. Do you go full ham and not limit people’s use of it if it’s legal? That’ll go wrong - look at the opioid problem big farma caused handing out much weaker opioids like candy. Do you restrict them to certain amounts per person? Same problem but now you’re just recruiting en masse for the illegal drug trade. 
  In general I find the idea of punishing people for using substances a waste of the legal system’s time.. but yeah I can’t really see a situation where legalising heroine to the degree you have heroine shops goes well. >
  
  The point if I'm not mistaken is to provide clean substances so that addicts won't risk buying product cut with fent. Comes from a place of empathy & saves lives, but looks really ass backwards. Not to mention- if these drugs are freely available while deemed illegal, cartels profit off of sales instead of US businesses & US government (from taxing sales). Sounds cray but you can cut the cartel off financially somewhat w this avenue. >
  
  Well, the thing is that doesn't work like that. USA is a example of a opioid crisis. >
  
  Seems like you got to the point of an opioid crisis without it being legal, so it seems like the people who want to do these drugs are already finding them.  The argument behind legalisation and increasing access in this manner is that the worst outcome from drug abuse is overdose deaths. The main cause of those deaths is drugs that are laced with another drug like fentanyl, or the fact that there is a no consistency in the purity of the drugs they consume so even if they take the same amount they usually use, there's always the risk that it's an especially pure batch that they got this time and they could still overdose from the same amount they normally consume.  The model also assumes that people who aren't users of heroin or other hard drugs, aren't going to just start using because it's available.  If you were walking down the street and could buy heroin, would you? I know I wouldn't knowing the facts about use, and that's likely true for the majority of the population.  Anyways, there's no way to know yet how effective this model will be because no one has really tried it but I think it's safe to say there's a serious problem at this time in history, and if we keep trying the same solutions we've been trying for the last 50 years were just going to get the same results. >
  
  I think this could work well paired with a big public drug education campaign. I see how people are such rabid anti-tobacco advocates while it's still legal to use and I also remember what smoking was like back in the 90s and 00s. I attribute the change to a longterm tobacco research & education campaign, not changes in accessibility. >
  
  I'm pretty progressive on drug policy, but 2.5g of cocaine=/=2.5g of meth=/=2.5g of heroin. That is WILD >
  
  But as Martin told VICE, getting arrested for The Drugs Store is part of the point. Should the store be busted, his goal would be to mount a charter challenge against the federal prohibition on hard drugs. >
  
  There is just substances. No hard or soft drugs just silly way people categorize something which in its own ways cant be categorized that way. But should rather be categorized by stimulant, sedative, psychedelic and etc. Then it be a matter of dosage. And receptors it activates and mechanism methods would be better way. Seems more like a way to spread stigma otherwise through fear mongering. >
  
  Some drugs are incredibly addictive, and incredibly destructive to the human body. There should not be a profit motive behind selling these and people should not pretend there's any context where taking these drugs outside of medical supervision is a good idea. >
  
  You've (arguably) described alchohol. >
  
  Compared to cocaine, heroin, and opiates? Not really. >
  
  Id say alcohol is worse than meth. Meth doesn't leave people having to poop through a tube into a bag. it impairs your thinking to a lesser degreewhich is why we don't see high tweak driving deaths on areas with rampant abuse. People only really wind up totally out of it after doing it for days nonstop with no sleep wheras a drunk can  be completely helpless and impossible to communicate with in under an hour. 
  Alcohol kills way more people.
  The withdraws can straight up kill you so good luck if you don't have rehab money. 
  I don't do it but many people I know do and you would never guess they were even high most of the time. >
  
  “Alcohol kills way more people”
  Way more people drink alcohol than use meth. That’s why.
  The actual mortality rate for meth users is way fucking higher than alcohol. >
  
  these sources claim Alcohol the most deadly drug  it actually kills more than all other drugs combined. It's the third highest cause of death in America. Even taking Into account the disparity in users it's still beats meth in kills.
  I think your thinking of heroin or Fetty or something. A fatal meth overdose is like getting struck by lightning rare, it's very very hard to die from meth.
  Science agrees with me on this. >
  
  
  Science agrees with me on this.
  
  No. You just don't understand the stats you're spouting. >
  
  
  But the sector became entrenched for the simple reason that Vancouver police openly refused to bust them. “We do have a priority-based approach to policing here in Vancouver, and we do have other priorities,” was how Vancouver police spokesman Const. Brian Montague explained the system at the time.
  
  This coming from a police department that let a serial killer run wild for decades because he targeted a segment of the population that they deemed to not be a priority. >
  
  This must always be remembered when talking about anything to do with Vancouver's problems. Our police force is rotten as fuck and seemingly getting worse.
  Google Myles Gray death, it's a great example of what we're dealing with.
  Edit: most importantly, nothing changed after Picton. Indigenous women disappear and turn up dead regularly, cases tend to be closed due to things like "lack of evidence of foul play" when it's someone who's been reported missing and at risk for months or even years by their families. It is beyond fucked.
  I suppose ultimately the drug store will be allowed to run for as long as the VPD sees it as a benefit to whatever the fuck it is that they do. >
  
  As we saw with Pickton, it will be because the movers and shakers in Vancouver are   linked to this Vancouver man running his drug shop and are running interference for him. >
  
  "Is this the 5 o' Clock Free Crack Giveaway?!!!" >
  
  Personal use and possession was decriminalized. Not gonna be able to have a retail location, the quantities required to sell and sell to people. This is gonna get shut down quickly. >
  
  Vancouver has had retail stores openly selling illegal drugs for decades. Instead of busting them the city started charging them for business licenses. The cannabis stores were actually better before it was legalized. You’ve always been able to buy mushrooms, DMT, peyote etc too even though they’re still fully illegal. 
  This is obviously pushing the line a bit farther than that but they wouldn’t be the first people in the city supplying these drugs. There’s a lot of political support there for providing a safe supply instead of seeing more people die from tainted drugs. >
  
  Not just Vancouver. All over Canada. This is just a step to be more open about hard drugs. >
  
  So i'm off to Tornoto soon....is this a thing there?!` >
  
  Frank White crawled so that The Drug Store could run >
  
  Rip Norm >
  
  I'm not convinced the plan is as wise as it is ambitious.  The store will have to be a fort to prevent the inevitable burglary attempts from succeeding. >
  
  well that is good at least you will know what is in it compared to the street one and the stuff added to it >
  
  War on Drugs going 180 degrees now >
  
  War, on drugs. >
  
  No, money down! >
  
  Jeeze Louise I can’t even sell my eggs or milk from our animals without getting arrested but hard core drugs is a possibility! >
  
  He’s going to get arrested. It’s the goal. This is a stunt to lead to a challenge of prohibition, not a ‘look the other way’ weed shop. >
  
  One of the biggest dangers with heroin nowadays is that it often contains fentanyl. If they could guarantee purity they could to save so many lives. >
  
  The biggest danger of heroin nowadays is that its heroin, there is no safe doses to take that stuff in.
  Crack maybe, heroin should be decriminalized but not legalized. Like the first thing a doctor will ask you if you are young adult and have debilitating leg pains/chest pains is if you use heroin, if tell them you did their attitude will immediately shift to deeply concerned. >
  
  Never heard of morphine? >
  
  Yeah there is a reason they use morphine and not heroin in hospitals anymore. Even they are reluctant to give you morphine, so that should tell you something. 
  The "magic drug" had some pretty severe side effects. >
  
  Hospitals usually use diluted fentanyl for intense pain around here. >
  
  Yeah it depends where you live, but overall a doctor or medical practitioner will hesitate to give you drugs that heavy unless they think the pain could actually kill you. >
  
  Where'd you get your medical degree, doc? >
  
  "Well, there was this dog in a trench coat, see..." >
  
  Except this isn't remotely legal.
  Decrim just means adicts aren't criminally liable for being adicts. Drugs are still illegal, and the emphasis goes to treatment, but people who run criminal enterprise based on selling drugs are still just that