Posted on 07/03/2006 10:38:13 AM PDT by A CA Guy
SAN FRANCISCO, July 3 — The newest attraction planned for Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco's most popular tourist destination, has no sign, no advertisements and not even a scrap of sourdough. Yet everyone seems to think that the new business, the Green Cross, will be a hit, drawing customers from all over the region to sample its aromatic wares.
For some, that is exactly the problem.
"The city is saturated with pot clubs," said T. Wade Randlett, the president of SF SOS, a quality-of-life group that opposes the planned club. "Fisherman's Wharf is a tourism attraction, and this is not the kind of tourism we're trying to attract."
Emboldened by a series of regulations passed last fall by the city's Board of Supervisors, some neighborhoods are resisting new marijuana dispensaries, which they say attract crime and dealers bent on reselling the drugs. In the debate over the new rules last year, several neighborhoods successfully lobbied to be exempted from having new clubs.
Other neighborhoods managed to get clubs shuttered, including a previous version of the Green Cross, which was forced out of a storefront in the city's Mission District after neighbors said they had seen a rise in drug dealing, traffic problems and petty crime, a charge the Green Cross denies.
And while the law was passed with seriously ill patients in mind, like those with AIDS and cancer, some critics say that now even people with commonplace aches and pains can get a doctor's recommendation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I've been here longer, but if they are so wonderful a member that they could be mistaken for me by my posts, I am sure they feel complimented. LOL
Most times drugs also involve more than one person and often we later all pay in hospital, rehab and burial bills.
Because the obvious safety of others is preserved by a simple, non-invasive agreement on convention. It does not lead to wrong-address, no-knock armed invasions buy jack-booted LEO thugs and a general savaging of the bill of rights costing me 50 billion and still counting and over-flowing prisons which breed gang violence the pours back onto the streets with no measurable advantage or benefit flowing to the tax-payers.
The difference between my question and your unworkable analogy should be obvious. Isn't it?
>>Most times drugs also involve more than one person and often we later all pay in hospital, rehab and burial bills.<<
Ah, I see you have watched Reefer Madness.
I really hate that sort of argument because it gives people an easy excuse to play dictator and that's bullcrap.
We are all living on private islands to a degree. The most private is our own body. Then our homes. Then our towns. Then our cities. Then our states.
They all have their own rules.
You want nationalize all those private places and declare them all one giant public place that you can regulate and control.
Fact is, many cities in CA would like to legalize pot, and that's their right. People from other places should just mind their own damn business.
You show an ignominious tendency to support thuggery and gum't control. I guess you would prefer them to be placed into foster care where they can be abused, raped, beaten, or worse. That is pathetic!
I perceive an absolute ignorance of life, as it really occurs... outside your doors! You think it is all about you! You type like one of the sheeple willingly being led to the slaughter.
The FDA already said no to solvents, glue sniffing, pot and other drugs because they pose a danger to society in general.
Need I say more?
The FDA figured pot was a dangerous drug for recreation and too weak for most medical uses. It is only allowed to the most sick and recreational use was widely banned just like sniffing glue.
The concept of do anything you feel like is not so much based in the Constitution as it is IMO anarchy and old hippies.
Who was it that said, "Make it legal and the price will drop dramatically"? That's $300 without any tax! You can get it cheaper illegally!
What's really funny is watching California try to collect a sales tax on a product they say is illegal to sell.
"Under the new policy passed by the state Board of Equalization, businesses can get what is known as a sellers permit, allowing them to collect sales tax, without indicating whether their merchandise is lawful to sell. Like the federal government, the state Board of Equalization considers any kind of marijuana sale to be unlawful. "
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yep, when you posted that to me, I do remember the contents of the caffeine is pretty high in some of that stuff and people have had some bad effects with it. Bet some lawsuits over that as well.
Do they dose the caffeine up or is it the mixture of the whole blend do you think? You get someone with blood pressure or heart problems and the Cappuccino could be a real big problem indeed. That is a lot worse situation that being wide awake.
This whole thing seems to be a mess.
First you have (I guess) activist doctors getting this pot to people with minor conditions.
You have what sounds like too many pot shops opening up around the state.
We've had robberies regarding some of these places and drug dealers taking up positions around such pot stores to try and sell customers and other additional drugs.
With some of these shops in tourist areas, you get dealers now approaching tourists that woun't come back.
The taxation side is the least of the problem and you bet they won't try to add big taxes to this smoke like they did tobacco.
I think they need to have state or government approved doctors to review the people and doctors involved in getting the pot.
They have to weed out (a little joke) the pot activist doctors and forbid them from participating in this area.
The shops should maybe be one every twelve or more miles in an industrial part of town at most.
Oh wow, that is exactly it. You get the worst of both worlds.
Blood sugar goes crazy with the sugar and the caffeine makes the heart race.
I don't know how long ago you got that, but I bet they are aware of the combo being dangerous an are using stuff that still tastes rich that are lite in sugar and caffeine now.
"Until recently, Mountain Dew in Canada was caffeine-free, which would make it virtually useless to Devoted Husband, who prefers his morning Dew as a pick-me-up rather than the more traditional black coffee. Canada has regulations on ..." - Glog...
Young Canadians used to drive over and party in farm fields late into the night...with a Mountain Dew "Buzz"! People will always seek what they want for themselves, regardless of the obstacles placed by others.
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise." - John Stuart Mill - On Liberty - 1869
Yep, Mountain Dew is nasty and I could never stand for more than a sip.
I think the company might be sued to hell and back because if you are offering a product with lots of caffeine and sugar to the point it wreaks havoc with your system it's going to get noticed with the lawyers. If they sell it in two liter bottles, that probably will be seen in court some day. Good catch!
Remember Jolt Cola? Twice the caffeine and all that! Pulled from the market I think.
The FDA is less reliable even than the DMC. What they say is completely irrelevant.
Also looks like the ruling in court could close these shops down, at least from what I read.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658914/posts
AKA "limited government intervention and freedom club"
Nope first is accurate. In the 60's and 70's the libertarians advocated legalizing drugs with the caveat that intoxicant use is never a mitigating factor for the defendant in legal or civil cases. In fact recreational drug use proves intent since users intentionally impair their own judgment.
Advocating legalized drug use without underscoring this responsibility for users as part of the package is indeed "pro-drug crowd". Feel free to try to debate this point by point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.