New Pot Ordinance Approved

Come November, they are going to be scratching their big fat heads over all the time they spent on this issue, only to see the people's will make history, again.

Dale looks like he could use a joint. Again, what harm to anybody on this planet does one person do smoking a Doobie in the privacy of their own home?

I attended the City Council meeting on Tuesday and listened closely. Only one citizen who spoke made explicit and specific reference to the scientific literature on marijuana. Council members in particular seem oblivious to the empirical evidence, which is overwhelming: apart from uncontaminated fruit, vegetables, and water, marijuana is among the safest of substances that human beings ingest. It is far and away safer than what most of the "red shirt" prohibitionists likely had for dinner, safer than the soft drinks, snacks and desserts that they supply to their children, safer than all FDA approved prescription medications (read the side-effects list). And please, don't anyone quote DEA statistics unless you're advertising your own ignorance.

Also in next Novembers ballot should be a recall of Francisco. A corrupt, ignorant throwback to the Middle Ages.
Francisco, Self and Hotchkiss should be shamed whenever they show their faces in public.

"In addition, the council agreed to place an initiative on the November ballot asking city voters whether dispensaries should be banned outright ..."
-- Independent

Why should voters be making decisions about access to a pharmaceutical product?

I think the debate should have focused on getting it into the hands of people who need it and keeping it out of the hands of those who shouldn't (i.e.children).

Here on 'ring-wing' news we have Glenn Beck leading the charge for marijuana legalization:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFmtir...

And in this supposedly 'progressive' town we have part of the Prison Industrial Complex (the rehab clinics that leach off of taxpayers via prohibition laws) and schools (arguably also apart of the Prison Industrial Complex) all lobbying to ban cannabis for sick people. 80% of the United States thinks that medicinal cannabis should be available for sick people, aren't we supposed to be AHEAD of the curve?? How backwards is this?

I'm shocked that Das Williams and Mayor Schneider voted like that, they must have been awfully sick of dealing with the issue to have voted for this solution.

This just goes to show how giving government more power leads to corruption and tyranny. You thought the establishment Republicans were fascist? Wait until you see the "New Left" !!!

Hey just a thought but does Dale Francisco look like he might be related to William Shatner?

Apparently the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse received over 1.5 million dollars of court ordered clients last year. How many of these court ordered patients were people who had been jailed for a joint; or if they prefer, how much money would they have NOT received if marijuana were legal.

"You thought the establishment Republicans were fascist? Wait until you see the 'New Left' !!!"

Some of us already are seeing it.

This is just the tyranny of political correctness. Once we empowered "minorities" (non white males) to file career ruining lawsuits for hundreds of thousands of dollars for off colored jokes and harrassements of all stripes, we lost control of reasonable decision making.

Thank the tort lawyers for that one.
Now any jerkoff soccer mom can throw a wrench into anything with just a nasty look or a red shirt.

Was Mr House, an intelligent, progressive leader, abandoned by Schneider, Williams, and White because they were weary of the struggle? Conviction and commitment to do the right thing often require a level of stamina which, sadly S, W & W appear to lack. Perhaps they are skipping breakfast?

Hello politics....

This is California, the people have spoken on this issue many times, and come November will shoot down their proposed ban. And then the politicians who disregarded what the people wanted will be booted out for playing safe and playing politics as usual, rather then focusing on the real pressing issues in the city.

At one point there were more dispensaries in town than starbucks. Imagine the line at starbucks if only one was allowed to opperate in town. Maybe we should only have 5 liquor stores operating in town, maybe 3 bars. I'll let those who don't know in on a dirty secret.......
One bottle of alcohol can cause more death and destruction than all the weed in the world.

Marijuana was legal before 1937.

1937 huh? right around the same time as operation mind control, I mean television.

Are you saying television was illegal before 1937? What would Vladamir Zworkin think?

I think Spacey was pointing out the irony.

I would like to know who the people are that are calling for increased regulation. I know there is a very vocal group of citizens who attend every possible city council meeting, but I am also guessing that there may be some other influence involved. In other words, how will the decision be made on which 3 dispensaries remain? They are set to make a lot of money in this deal.

Actually a lot of the people calling for regulation are usually screaming for deregulation, for oil companies and the like.

All the smart people that live here in Santa Barbara and we got these idiots planning our economy, and telling us what we can and can not do. Pathetic.

I disagree with both sides here. The people who want to ban pot (and the shops) and the people who want to 'legalize pot' both ultimately give the government more power. More government power = less freedom.

The debate should not be about a specific substance, but the principal of the matter, government regulation of substances, weed just happens to be our local test case which we can learn from. What's next?

If you want real solutions look beyond, look thoughtfully at the principals behind the issues, don't get trapped in the politics of them because if you do your efforts will be worthless. We need major reform. Read the Constitution and quit being a cog.

"I disagree with both sides here. The people who want to ban pot (and the shops) and the people who want to 'legalize pot' both ultimately give the government more power. More government power = less freedom."

Since I think pot should be legalized and doesn't need to be regulated, does that mean we are in agreement?

@billclausen I suppose we are in agreement, however the pot debate is rich in means and poor in ends.

What bothers me is that everything we do is legislated, either right or wrong, it should not be this way. The government should not be in the business of running peoples lives by telling them what is right or wrong, good or bad-we should be accountable for our actions.

By 'legalizing' pot we will get more of the same and probably in 50 or so years we will be having the same debate again after another Marijuana Stamp Act is passed. If pot becomes legal, it will be regulated, which ironically will mean it is not really 'legal' or 'free' to use, eventually it will become illegal again like it did in 1937 because there are no principals behind the 'legalization'.

People argue that pot doesn't kill you, that it is safe to use et al...that is the wrong argument, by making that argument you are saying the government works properly, clearly it doesn't, that they should tell us what to do, what is safe and what is not. I do not agree with that sentiment! The argument should be whether or not the government should make these decisions for us, then we can have true reform rich in means and rich in ends and have real freedom.

I guess my views are just more radical-I don't think any substance should be illegal.

Actions have consequences, not substances.

Tucker makes a fantastic point that goes slightly beyond my usual tactful arguments designed primarily for statists on both the left and right in order to reach compromise.

Who owns your body? Do you own your body, or does the government?

Tucker: we are in complete agreement.

At the next gathering, someone bring some doobage and spead a little happiness.