San Francisco to effectively legalize Marijuana

New said:
What joyous day! Kalloo, Kallay! This is a large step forward in a very large process.:)
Click to expand...


Right you are, styrofoam products have been giving the food service industry a bad name for years, companies who make such products should be sued for environmental destruction :X

I mean...yay nugs :)
 
As an outsider, who knows little of the due processes of US law, am I right in thinking that federal law will still allow the 'feds' to carry out prosecutions and impose harsh penalties for pot offences:X ? And can the US Govt. appeal this and attempt to reverse it?

Hope they don't - nice to see changes taking place=D . Too many people in US serving brutal sentences for what seems minor drug offences:( .

E
 
Seattle did this ages ago and in and of itself, it really doesn't mean shit unfortunately.

However it is one step closer to legalization :)
 
I think the non-drug-using public is slowly starting to figure out that marijuana is pretty benign. It's a great development.

I've always thought that the people who make money from pot being illegal - bar owners, alcohol makers/distributors, restauranteurs, police agencies, prison builders, prison guards - would fight like hell to stop any kind of legalization. Maybe they have decided they can coexist with pot, and that drinking combined with pot can feel pretty good.

Now the biggest hurdle is the people who would hope to control our lives to the fullest extent possible: organized religion.

nuke said:
If only it was acid.
Click to expand...

What if everyone took acid and than voted on whether to go to war? But it would have to be the whole world for it to work, not just selected countries.
 
Johnny1 said:
What if everyone took acid and than voted on whether to go to war? But it would have to be the whole world for it to work, not just selected countries.
Click to expand...

imagine everyone over in iraq loaded on paper or liquid.. one huge fun party..
 
Also, the title of this thread is so inaccurate and misleading that it's almost an outright lie :\

You will still get arrested for possessing or distributing marijuana regardless of where it falls on the "illegality" list. Illegal is illegal. An "easing" of the law does not constitue "legalization".
 
The article is more inaccurate talking about legislation. Edit: Read too inaccurately your post, it's much the same if illegality is removed or it's legalised.

am I right in thinking that federal law will still allow the 'feds' to carry out prosecutions and impose harsh penalties for pot offences ?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the case. It's quite irrational for a state to be selling medical cannabis one day and the other day you see federal agents rushing to your home to take you to jail. How logical is that.
 
Last edited:
*Adds another line to list of reasons to move to SF*

We can add another tally on the 'push in the right direction' side of the board :)
 
fuk yea!

i can already see the chain of reactions setting to take place that will reach the east coast so i can smoke marijuana on the streets and not have to worry bout gettin caught anymore.
 
I see this is front page news now. Even though it's basically a copycat story. Seattle did this years ago, as well as I think another west coast city but I can't remember which one. Maybe Portland or Oakland? I'm thinking land for some reason.
 
AMSTERTERDAMN WEST!!!!!!


hell, with how enthusiastic most americans involved in cannabis culture are (at least those i know), no one will even know what Amsterdam is with the copious amounts of ganj that will/should overflow the streets of SF. awesome article. im sitting here smoking a shit ton of some bomb hash while reading this with a huge grin on my face!!!

...east coast is getting pretty crowded...
 
Trogdor said:
I see this is front page news now. Even though it's basically a copycat story. Seattle did this years ago, as well as I think another west coast city but I can't remember which one. Maybe Portland or Oakland? I'm thinking land for some reason.
Click to expand...

It was Oakland. Basically this just means the cops can ignore it if they feel like it, but they can still arrest you if they feel like it, too.
 
"This measure, which would legalize the unlimited growth and sales (of marijuana) on private property, will make public spitting and (leaving chewing) gum ... on the sidewalk higher priorities,"
Click to expand...

sweeeet =D lol

not really 'legalization' but still better than nothing :)
 
Astavats said:
Be nice if this passes...maybe it would start encouraging others to "let loose" a little?
Click to expand...

It is nicer than I thought it would be...now if Los Angeles were to do the same, it would be all the better. Hollywood and some Pacific coast sides area have been taking this step though I don't think any of them have been anything on paper, or legal.

Anyway, thanks for the update!
 
frizzantik said:
sweeeet =D lol

not really 'legalization' but still better than nothing :)
Click to expand...


yeah i am in the process of showing this article to most of my friends, and a lot of them are making comments along the lines of "big deal, well thats not really legalization, that doesnt help anything out," etc. I dont understand how people (who are more aware of how bizzare criminalizing cannabis is) dont think that this sort of thing is wonderful news. The more recognition of social acceptability across the board, the more quickly we can decriminalize nationwide. You cant run a mile without first standing up.
 
The more I read up on this, the less I understand.

Posted by CN Staff on November 06, 2006 at 10:29:18 PT
By Adam Martin, The Examiner
Source: San Francisco Examiner

San Francisco -- An ordinance to put marijuana infractions somewhere below spitting on the sidewalk on San Francisco’s law enforcement priority list is slated for a vote after its language was changed to give police discretion to investigate marijuana offenses that may pose a risk to public safety. [i'm sure anything could be used to constitue "public safety" i.e. "pot is bad for the public - CB]
But a neighborhood group that cried foul over the proposed ordinance’s first inception has not dropped their opposition.

The ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Tom Ammiano on Aug. 15, would officially make marijuana possession, sales and cultivation San Francisco’s lowest law-enforcement priority, [but still a law-enforcement priority -CB] with exceptions for driving while impaired, selling marijuana to children and endangering public safety. It would also create a seven-member advisory community oversight committee to monitor implementation.

But a small group of neighbors calling themselves the Fair Oaks Community Coalition is making a big noise over the legislation, which Ammiano’s office characterized as little more than a policy statement.

“It’s essentially a drug dealer protection act. It revokes the MCD (medical cannabis dispensary) legislation and sidesteps zoning restrictions that are in place,” coalition member Veronica Gaynor said.

The Fair Oaks group contends that the legislation, which does not impose a limit on the number of plants residents can grow, flies in the face of zoning laws put in place this year that limit the number of plants grown at medical cannabis dispensaries. They also claim it will give organized drug cartels a safe place to grow and sell the drugs that fund their violent operations.

But Ammiano’s office contends that the ordinance would not pre-empt the planning code. Any zoning ordinances already on the books concerning marijuana cultivation would continue to be enforced, according to the supervisor. The law would also allow police to investigate potentially violent or unsafe sales and growing operations.

Ammiano said he asked a police captain to help craft language in the draft ordinance that would allow police “to effectively investigate grow operations and to combat criminal activities associated with the sale and distribution of marijuana.”

The legislation specifically prohibits selling, growing or consuming marijuana on public property or in public view, but San Francisco Police Officers Association President Gary Delagnes said increased demand because of the legislation would nevertheless increase street drug sales because the prices are higher in marijuana clubs. The legislation would also compel San Francisco to refuse federal funding for marijuana enforcement, which Delagnes said would be a mistake.

San Francisco passed legislation in 1978 ending marijuana arrests and prosecutions. [WTF does THAT mean?? -CB] Since then, a number of pro-marijuana policy statements have passed the Board of Supervisors, but none have been legally binding. Ammiano’s office claims the proposed legislation would simply eliminate the gray area between what is a crime and what isn’t.

The proposed ordinance goes before the Board of Supervisors’ City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee today at 1 p.m.

Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Author: Adam Martin, The Examiner
Published: November 6, 2006
Copyright: 2006 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Click to expand...

Posted by CN Staff on November 15, 2006 at 14:31:46 PT
By Carolyn Tyler
Source: ABC News

Calif. -- San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed a law that essentially says when it comes to marijuana, the city doesn't much care. [similar to oakland and seattle's law - yet i know several people who have been busted in seattle since that "law" was inacted - CB]
The proposal passed overwhelmingly today and it gets a second reading same time next week, but that's mostly a formality. So for all intents and purposes, the city has a new pot policy.

Veronica Gaynor, Fair Oaks Community Coalition: "The police will have to arrest for barking dogs or spitting on the sidewalk before they get to this marijuana." [so in other words -- if there's no dogs barking or people spitting on the sidealk, you'll STILL GET ARRESTED]

Members of a mission neighborhood group oppose the new measure which makes marijuana violations by adults on private property the lowest priority for San Francisco police.

The mayor says it simply formalizes what is already city policy.

Gavin Newsom, San Francisco: "I don't see it changing anything what so ever - frankly I think it's just symbolic."

The measure provides some exceptions: allowing crackdowns on those caught driving under the influence, selling pot on public property, if it poses a threat to public safety, and the use and sale involving minors.

Most other marijuana offenses will be a low priority but Police Chief Heather Fong says that doesn't mean her officers will turn a blind eye.

Chief Heather Fong, SFPD: "When there are legitimate criminal behaviors, criminal acts that occur, officers are permitted to enforce the law as they have been."

A public hearing was held yesterday. Some critics believe the measure will undermine San Francisco's medical marijuana clubs.

Kim Stryker, Fair Oaks Community Coalition: "There's no reason to get a permit for a medical facility, there's no reason to get a medical card - you just go to your neighbor and buy what you want in unlimited amounts according to this legislation." (WTF this totally contradicts what the mayor and police chief says- CB]

Supervisor Tom Ammiano calls that an over-reaction. He is the sponsor of the legislation.

Tom Ammiano: "I don't know why the "neighbors" keep saying that after we point out that it's not true. Whatever the police are doing now they will continue to do, it's up to them."

San Francisco's new law includes a committee to monitor the implementation. This law is similar to an ordinance passed by Santa Cruz voters last week.

Copyright: 2006, ABC7/KGO-TV/DT

Newshawk: Laduncon
Source: ABC News (US Web)
Author: Carolyn Tyler
Published: November 14, 2006
Copyright: 2006 ABC News
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/
http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22380.shtml
Click to expand...

So S.F. passed laws in 1978 "ending" marijuana related arrests? I'm sure thats news to everyone whose been arrested for pot-related crime since then.

As a side note, do a google search for info on this law. The ONLY article talking about this is SF.gate and http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22380.shtml


THE WOOD - I have to agree with your friends' conclusions :\

edit: to the mods of this forum, i would highly suggest changing the title of this thread as it is on the front page -- straight from the horses mouth [the legislations sponsor] "Whatever the police are doing now they will continue to do, it's up to them."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top