cannabisnews.com: Low Profile for City's Pot Prop Low Profile for City's Pot Prop Posted by CN Staff on October 06, 2003 at 09:25:02 PT By Millicent Mayfield Of The Examiner Staff Source: San Francisco Examiner Voters may have approved Proposition S, the measure that calls on city officials to explore the possibility of growing and distributing medical marijuana in The City, but now the tricky part begins -- actually implementing it. "Cannabis has been proven over and over to have a beneficial effect," said Supervisor Bevan Dufty during a hearing held on the subject by the Board of Supervisors' City Services Committee Oct. 2. The meeting was packed with medical-marijuana supporters, who represented the 62 percent of the electorate that passed Prop. S in November 2002. The measure seeks to further the intentions behind the 1996 voter-approved Proposition 215, the state measure that provides legal protections for patients using pot for medicinal purposes. However, "sharp hostility" on the part of President George W. Bush and his administration toward California's medical-marijuana laws has sought to undermine the will of the voters, according to Dufty. The situation has resulted in a spate of raids that have closed some medical-marijuana supply clubs across California and an onslaught of legal conundrums that have prompted other clubs to close in order to avoid troublesome legal battles. For that reason, city officials who spoke at the hearing suggested that the successful implementation of Prop. S would depend on attracting very little attention. "The key is to keep your head down and avoid city involvement as much as possible," said District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who counseled against using city land to harvest medical marijuana. Instead, The City's role should include authorizing medical-marijuana clubs to grow a limited amount of pot for needy patients, maintaining availability to avoid seepage into the black market and setting quality and price controls, Hallinan said. Hettrich, however, cautioned against too much leniency by The City in its interest to allow medical marijuana to flourish, especially if cops were asked to provide costly security for the clubs. The City's Police Department has already been criticized by federal agencies for its relaxed attitude toward marijuana. Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)Author: Millicent Mayfield Of The Examiner StaffPublished: Monday, October 6, 2003Copyright: 2003 San Francisco ExaminerContact: letters sfexaminer.comWebsite: http://www.examiner.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmCommittee Asks for S.F. Pot Garden Studyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17447.shtmlSF Supes Committee Considers Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17415.shtmlSF Looking At How To Grow Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17403.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #9 posted by Max Flowers on October 06, 2003 at 19:43:05 PT Hydrogenated oil Jose, thanks for bringing up hydrogenated oil as I think that is one of the biggest sleeper stories about corruption there are. They've known (they being everyone from the manufacturers to the FDA) for a long time that that stuff messes you up *bad* and they go on selling it and I don't mean it's in a few things, it's in a HUGE number of "foods" (yuck) at all the major grocery store chains, in so so many processed food items. It is everywhere, and hard to avoid even. Just like with cigarettes, it's institutionalized poisoning and I for one am disgusted at the total lack of any ethical fiber at all among all these giant corporations and agencies... they're all so hooked on the money that they're only too wiling to go on and on selling it, and it's killing people. No one among them has the balls to stand up and face what they're trafficking in. A few books have been written warning about it, but that's not what I'm talking about. In my dreams, Safeway or one of these grocery stores will finally have the ethics and compassion and courage to make huge news and say "sorry but we think the evidence is clear, hydrogenated oils are toxic and cause heart disease and we no longer want to sell products containing it."Okay sorry, I went wacky there for a minute. Back to the real world where real poisons are legal and safe things are banned as poisons.MF [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on October 06, 2003 at 11:46:30 PT more meaningful this way, true regardless . . . the top selling brands sell precisely becaused they engineered their products to increase usage. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on October 06, 2003 at 11:44:18 PT pleasure "We should be allowed to pick our own poison . . ."YES! "Did the cig companies do wrong... no doubt. Should they be held responsible for those who chose to smoke? It's debatable."Here's the deal on that. They knowingly advertised that filtered cigarettes were safer, knowing the opposite to be true. Cigarette sales increased along with the death rate. They lied to Congress about not having knowledge of the addictive nature of their products, yet the top selling brand sells precisely becaused they engineered their products to increase usage. Nearly 5 million die annually from cigarettes on this planet, 400,000 plus in North America. Yet the Partnership for a Drug Free America still receives funding from food manufacturers formerly owned by huge cigarette companies, food companies that consistently use partially hydrogenated oils and high enough levels of sugar that diabetes and other health problems like obesity are considered normal.The PDFA and other anti-drug frauds are still funded to this day by alcohol and pharmaceutical firms, but ONDCP is lining up to get 2.5 billion over the next few years. My senator wrote me a nice form email telling me that my views on HR 2086 were very important to him. Right. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 06, 2003 at 11:26:57 PT Thanks Jose Thanks for explaining. We should be allowed to pick our own poison like they use to say. Governing what we do whether it is smoking cigarettes, cannabis or drinking alcohol shouldn't be the right of the government and it should be the right of a person that is an adults to make up their own mind about what they consume. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on October 06, 2003 at 11:18:31 PT relax I know it's a touchy subject. If you read the actual documents from inside the cigarette companies, you will see that these crooks manipulated the addictive nature of their products, bought and paid for science and laws that would otherwise have exposed the truth, all to to sell more cigarettes.They know their advertising works to increase their market share of children, and get off scot free when they perjure themselves, while their own attorney (Ken Starr) went on to waste dozens of millions attempting to stain a U.S. President, for perjury! Tommy Chong faces 9 months in prison. Do I think cigarette users ought to be locked up? NO! Can I get them to help me arrest prohibition? Only if realize they are next if we lose, that cannabis is safer and that they should instruct their elected representatives to go after real criminals, like the ones that wear white collars.Here's a current news piece that discusses 45 arrests after a drunken riot in Michigan:http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_278182154.htmlPoison is legal, just not pot. It's not that I think y'all should be arrested. It's that I should be free to consume my weed, as I wish. Since it's not poison, and it's not legal, it's not fair. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 06, 2003 at 10:38:59 PT BigDawg Thanks for your comment on both issues. I believe that everyone knows the risks of smoking and I can't imagine anyone not knowing. When they started talking about the tobacco industry years back I was going to MSNBC News Chat and I can remember how I felt back then. I thought all that this will do is make lawyers richer and people poorer who smoke because they increase the prices. With the tax collected from cigarettes we should have free health care. Maybe that's not altogether true but close. We can sue over anything we want and I remember when my friend couldn't find a job as a lawyer. Now with law suits plenty of lawyers have jobs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by BigDawg on October 06, 2003 at 10:30:53 PT As far as tobacco goes... what the companies did was way wrong as far as hiding the negative aspects is concerned, but I kinda doubt anyone was actually niave enough to think smoking was not harmful.Did the cig companies do wrong... no doubt. Should they be held responsible for those who chose to smoke? It's debatable.As for the topic of this article, seems to me that the best thing in the LONG HAUL would be for the City to get involved. It then becomes one gov't vs another instead of having the people get thrown to the lions. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 06, 2003 at 09:46:58 PT Jose a Question Do you believe that people who smoke cigarettes should be allowed to smoke? I know that I think it is ok. We should be allowed to do what we want to ourselves even if it kills us but then we shouldn't try to sue a tobacco company if we get sick. We have become a sue happy country and we need to be responsible for our own actions as best as we can. That's my opinion. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on October 06, 2003 at 09:29:42 PT meanwhile . . . from:http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAB6DEMGLD.htmlWASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday threw out an $80 million verdict against cigarette-maker Philip Morris. The verdict, for the family of an Oregon janitor who died in 1997 of lung cancer, should be reviewed by lower courts to ensure it is not unconstitutionally excessive, justices said. The court's action was encouraging for businesses, which hope a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year will lead to reductions in large punitive damage verdicts. - snipped poison is legal, just not pot [ Post Comment ] Post Comment