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 ...
The sacrament of recreational drugs isn't admirable. The furthest extent of freedom is anarchy.
I doubt the Founders seeing an additional 300 million in dangerous times would say go still live as if you were an island unto yourself.
I doubt the Founding Fathers would laugh any less at pro drug addiction warriors than most do today.
They had more class than I think you give them credit for so I doubt they would have ever been in the company of the pro addiction warriors.
I simply refer to the parent at home with the kids who is the one watching them.
If they use drugs or get high drinking, that is cause for the children to be removed by children's services for child endangerment.
Makes no difference if they are watching football or anything else.
Is there child endangerment?
That is what brings in people to remove kids.
If they were getting high at home with kids, of course if they were watching the kids then Children's Services would need to remove the kids from the home as an unsafe environment.
I have to assume you also include those dads who spend Sundays watch football on TV and drinking a six-pack of beer. They are drunk and not able to legally operate a car, but is it ok for them to have custody of their children?
Where is the difference?
Last time I checked glue and paint thinner were available at any hardware store.
Many people use these substances in a safe and healthy manner. ( I happen to repair furniture in my spare time.) Ultimately it is up to the individual to do just that with any substance.
Given the fact that MJ use or abuse has never caused a death (Unlike glue or paint thinner) why would you possibly support the prohibition of a substance many use in a safe and healthy manner.
The glue is behind the counter and the thinner is removed in most cases from the work environment because of all the cancer it caused workers.
Now it has to be handled differently than twenty years ago.
Pot has killed tons of people and caused a tons of violence. Go take a trip to any see any violent offenders in prison and you will see they were all big marijuana fans who mixed that drug with other stuff and then got violent.
Pretty much all the jailed offenders have nice pot habbits.
So because 1% (if that) of alcohol consumption is for nonrecreational purposes, all alcohol consumption should be legal for adults? What is the principle underlying that strange conclusion? Or do you just make this stuff up as you go?
Google "Vitamin C Injections + Cancer"
Read for yourself.
I will be right back with a current link to a article posted here recently.
there are already major restrictions on alcohol. Many behaviors with alcohol can land you in jail.
And yet the less dangerous drug is more heavily restricted ... why should that be so?
But you approve of making it available with a doctor's recommendation?
Here is a current link showing possible benefits from Vitamin C Injections.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1651575/posts
Utter rubbish. Why do you post such blatant falsehoods?
Go take a trip to any see any violent offenders in prison and you will see they were all big marijuana fans who mixed that drug with other stuff and then got violent.
And it's the other stuff ... including alcohol ... that induced the violence.
Provide a single quotation from any Founding Father that supports your claims.
Your uninformed opinion about the Founders is consistent with your opinions expressed so far, unimpressive and unpersuasive.
Where the hell do you live?
Pot has killed tons of people and caused a tons of violence.
Oh, thats right, your mommy told you all this. I almost forgot
In an earlier post you advocated the safe and healthful use of a deadly drug, alcohol.
Why do you feel the need to restrict others choices.
Not mommies reasons, yours. After all you have smoked weed and you do have some firsthand experience, right?
The city is also saturated with AIDS, homosexual bath houses, pedophiles, methamphetamine, traitors, and any other manner of societal decay...
That is my point, the Founders would be living in their own times and could never conceive of two way highways, 300 million more people and all the current complications of life. They are the foundation of what we are, they are not the whole building we built.
With druggies needing rehab, hospitals, burials and jail these days, I doubt the Founding fathers could be for that since the financial responsibility is going to the taxpayer and not the responsible party.
The Founders weren't fans of taxpayers paying for the problems of their neighbors when it could be avoided.
Druggies need rehab, hospital care, jail, burial and other costly things that they rarely can afford themselves.
They are like dependent little dysfunctional children as adults and I don't see how the Founders could salute that.
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.