cannabisnews.com: Laid-Back Rules for City Pot Clubs





Laid-Back Rules for City Pot Clubs
Posted by CN Staff on December 12, 2002 at 10:47:23 PT
By J.K. Dineen of The Examiner Staff
Source: San Francisco Examiner 
When medicinal marijuana club owner Jim Green called City Hall to find out what special zoning requirements applied to cannabis clubs, he was surprised by the answer. "They said 'there's no special laws, honey -- just do me a favor and don't put it next door to a grade school or within eye shot of the archdiocese,'" said Green, owner of the Market Street Club in the Castro. In a city known for its intense neighborhood activist-driven public processes, medicinal cannabis stands out as uniquely unscrutinized. 
While special permits and public hearings are needed to sell ice cream, throw a masked ball, install a pool table, or strum a guitar in a coffee house, you don't need one for medicinal pot.  While some businesses spend months lining up special police permits, liquor commission permits, entertainment commission permits, and health department permits, pot clubs need only to obtain a general business permit from the county.  "We had no idea this place was going to open up until the marijuana leaves were being stenciled on the windows," said a next-door neighbor of a Haight Street club who asked not to be named for fear of harassment.  The father of two, who pointed out that while he is routinely notified about opportunities to protest the addition of a new fire escape or antennas on a local business, said the cluster of patients constantly lighting up in front of his front gate has made life uncomfortable on a block already grappling with a drug dealing problem.  Lois Scott, a senior planner in the Planning Department, said medical marijuana is an "institutional use" and falls into the category of "social service or philanthropic facilities" as well "private clubhouses." The use is allowed in commercial, mixed-use, and manufacturing zones -- everywhere besides straight residential zoning. Only if the use is not consistent with prior use does the club need to go through any sort of public process.  Scott said the issue has come up in the Planning Department.  "It might make sense that here would be a special police permitting process," said Scott. "In some cases our obsolete zoning has to catch up with changes in lifestyle and technology."  Barbara Meskunas, head of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, said the issue has come up again and again but that police and politicians are loath to appear to be attacking the politically popular program.  "They are a protected nuisance -- that's what they are," said Meskunas. "Nobody wants to touch this one. (The club owners) are politically connected and protected."  While several Haight Street residents say they have called and written Supervisor Matt Gonzalez with complaints, an aide to Gonzalez said he had not heard of any calls on the matter.  For police, cracking down on quality-of-life issues surrounding cannabis clubs is a waste of resources. While cops may empathize with the neighbors complaining about crowds smoking outside clubs, it's impossible to weed out the legal medicinal users from stoners intent on exploiting the law. Besides, it's well known that District Attorney Terence Hallinan is a big supporter of legalization, so its unlikely recreational users would be prosecuted.  "The police are not involved -- we're out of it," said public information officer James Deignan. "It's not our issue, it's a public health issue"  Even some club owners say they would not be against a special police permitting process. While the San Francisco Patients Resource Center has been the target of a fair number of neighborhood complaints, co-owner Randi Webster said a special pot club permit might "show that these are not drug houses but professional businesses," said Webster.  "The best way to do that is to act like a business -- it's the old walk like a duck and talk like a duck."  On second thought, Webster is not convinced a special permit is needed.  "It would be interesting in some regards, but I also think it could be a whole lot of hoo-hah," she said.Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)Author: J.K. Dineen of The Examiner StaffPublished: December 12, 2002Copyright: 2002 San Francisco ExaminerContact: letters sfexaminer.comWebsite: http://www.examiner.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmA New Pot of Goldhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14878.shtmlSan Francisco To Explore Growing Cannabis http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14702.shtmlProp. S: Challenging the Feds http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14669.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by p4me on December 12, 2002 at 14:56:50 PT
Where is the American coverage by the librul press
I really was not going to comment on Common’s report again. But this is the 2 year anniversary of Busch being appointed President and I thought it should be noted. 
 
It is a sad situation when the government propagandizes a link between terrorism and illegal drug use and then ignores the fact that the United States oil companies buy 90% of Iraq’s oil. I submit my paragraph of the day.From the first moments of the Bush administration until well into this year, US oil companies have been Saddam’s biggest customers. US corporations bought 90% of Iraqi oil exports last year. They were still buying -- through middlemen of various nationalities -- well into summer of 2002. - http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/12/11_Oil.htmlHow far we have gone (backwards) when telling a joke about the Dummy in Residence can get you 37 months in jail: http://www.thespeciousreport.com/2002_burningbush.html Since it is the second anniversary of the supreme court appointment of Busch I wanted to comment one more time on the absurdity of the Largest Minority Rule that lets candidates win office without a majority of the votes. This is absolutely stifling to the political process that could form new parties and allow for mending of the corporate takeover of America. This situation first came to my attention in the governor’s race in New York which Pataki won with 51% of the vote. The Largest Minority Rule is best illustrated in Minnesota where Perot[s remnant Independence party and the Libertarian Party gave the Repugs these four highly critical offices without a majority of the voters.The Minnesota elections http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&Races=0103 -Senatehttp://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&Races=0331 -Governorhttp://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&Races=0332 - Secretary of Statehttp://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&Races=0333 - AuditorI do have one more thought on the Common’s Report and it has to do with what Dr. Russo said but with a certain detail. First where is the analysis to highlight the merits/differences of the Senate and Common Reports? There should be an analysis and it seems like the New York Times should do just that or even the Washington Post for that matter. The fact that there is no analysis much less any decent coverage of cannabis reform in Canada period is just evidence of the corporate takeover of the media. It really is sad.Did you $4.20 today? 1
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on December 12, 2002 at 10:53:21 PT
Question
"While special permits and public hearings are needed to sell ice cream, throw a masked ball, install a pool table, or strum a guitar in a coffee house, you don't need one for medicinal pot."Oh yeah? How many of these facilities serve EXCLUSIVELY sick, dying, and disabled people? Who do they think is using these clubs?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment