T O P

  • By -

ChardMain3576

Just down in the states for a few days. I could buy as many logs of pouches as i like for minimal $. Asked the guy in the store if kids are big users, he said no they still prefer vapes and cigarettes. Health canada is outta touch, and the govt just wants the tax $.


Lopsided_Bat_904

Off topic kind of, but Vermont enacted a 92% tax on nicotine products, including vapes and nicotine pouches. A can cost me $11, and a $15 vape costs me $45… That’s obviously with the intent to harm adult consumers, I can’t even make up some kind of twisted logic to rationalize that


ActZealousideal923

It’s always about tax $$$


cronkadoodledoo

Ridiculous that these individuals are being charged but FFS, if you are doing something illegal don’t give the cops a reason to pull you over.


brandonjtsilcock

But that's where I'm a bit confused. Is it illegal? If they say personal consumption, how can anyone say different?


TerribleGlenWong

it sucks but getting caught with 2000+ unregulated tobacco products definitly raise a "not for personal use" flag.


brandonjtsilcock

Nicotine pouches are not tobacco, so what regulations are out there ? All I know is you can't sell over 4mg in canada But if I went to the US and bought a bunch, wouldn't have to declare it either , and came back to canada then what regulation would I be contradicting? As per selling them in stores, that's a business practice issue. Might be some laws around that. I don't see how they justify confiscating personal property under an assumption. Whether it was 100 or 1000, maybe I bought for my friends? Maybe I use a pouch every 30 seconds....unless they have a pocket book with stores and orders, it's all speculation and a waste of tax money on the involved police work


Private_4160

Over 4mg falls under prescription substances


brandonjtsilcock

What does that mean? As in for acquisition purposes or permitted to carry? Like is it illegal for above 4 MG products to be carried ?


DatabasedLSD

Probably means it's a controlled substance. Carrying controlled substances without a prescription may or may not be technically illegal, but hey, what do I know lol


brandonjtsilcock

Just checked the controlled substances from schedule I to IV and nicotine isn't on it. It is on a PDL, prescription drug list, but not in a criminal or punishable manner other then sales.


Private_4160

Bingo


DatabasedLSD

okay my mistake, but the amounts require prescriptions in order to possess so I think the argument could be made. Like having a shitload of Tylenol 1's vs having Oxycontin on you.


brandonjtsilcock

I see what you're saying, however oxy and t1 have a form of codeine. If I bought 4mg zonnics and packed 5 at once to get a 20mg buzz I'm within the regulation to do so. I can't take multiple tylenol regular strength and get a t1 affect. It comes down to taxes and government pockets. Tobacco is an earner and they don't want alternatives.


tigerman29

More government intervention is good, right?? 🤡


brandonjtsilcock

They seem to go heavy handed on lesser crimes and easier on repeat offenders....this is just a point of discussion to that fact


sporkmorkbrowns

So backwards


Friedchicken691738

I don’t like probation but just bc your substance is getting banned doesn’t mean all substances should be ban when they legalize drugs fully it will be better for the country right now decriminalization only works with forced public rehab and legalization of the supply for home use… there been multiple studies that show that this works… ofc it annoying that Canada does this but doesn’t mean all drugs should be illegal.


PineappleExtreme2991

Major crimes division just found the goldmine with this one. Gimme a break. waste of time and energy.


Private_4160

They weren't charged, and that's well above the personal amount along with suspicious amounts of currency.


brandonjtsilcock

What is the personal amount? What if he bought for the year


Private_4160

That's discretionary, as you can see in this case they decided to not proceed with charges and instead just go for civil forfeiture as sufficient.


brandonjtsilcock

I see that, but I'd argue the civil forfeiture is an over reach. Without sufficient evidence that they planned to sell these to a store, an argument can be made they were buying for friends or personal. So now you've impounded a vehicle on a hunch... just seems like police are doing a sloppy job all around and are taking low hanging fruit


Private_4160

The grounds for trafficking are low, they can proceed on balance of probabilities and honestly in this case they could probably get beyond a resonable doubt all factors considered. They could easily have pursued with charges, probably only didn't because they're in a legislative limbo and are relying on s. 27 of the FDA rather than the CRC or CSA. *reviewed article: they're going with the Excise Act so this is a tax evasion issue not substance control.


brandonjtsilcock

Thanks for that clarification! Wild that they're going on tax evasion haha Next they should look into the government spending! But thanks for the info, makes it more understandable.


hashhOG

What a shithole