cannabisnews.com: Oakland Considers Limits on Cannabis Shops





Oakland Considers Limits on Cannabis Shops
Posted by CN Staff on January 18, 2004 at 20:17:40 PT
By Michael Martinez, Chicago Tribune
Source: Chicago Tribune 
Oakland, Calif. -- When Stacie Traylor opened a medical marijuana dispensary in a vacant art-deco floral store four years ago, it stood among only a few. Now the gritty downtown quarter is a major hub, with as many as a dozen pot clubs surrounding Telegraph Avenue, and Traylor is upset at the notoriety that has come to the city's cannabis corner.Some shops allow marijuana smoke to waft onto sidewalks, a violation of at least the city's smoke-free public building ordinance.
They post men conspicuously outside the front door, including one coffeehouse worker soliciting passers-by with palm cards, prompting neighborhood complaints that the guards act like street-corner hustlers. A youth center for gays, lesbians and bisexuals says it was forced to close in November because of the nearby pot clubs.The area in the shadow of City Hall has been nicknamed "Oaksterdam," a reference to Amsterdam's freewheeling pot scene.This week, the city of Oakland may be ready to clamp down. A proposal expected to be considered by the City Council on Tuesday would impose a cap on the number of shops, forcing some to close.Such regulation could be contentious in an area that provided strong support for California's Proposition 215, the 1996 ballot initiative legalizing medical marijuana.Cannabis shop owners tread a perilous path between state and federal laws. They say the state law exempts their shops from prosecution, but federal laws say marijuana is illegal.Brenda Brown, 46, is a believer in the clubs."If it weren't for them, I'd be dead. I'd give up," said Brown outside a coffeehouse that sells marijuana from a back room.Brown, a therapist and advocate for the disabled, said she uses medical marijuana for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and shuns prescription painkillers because they make her feel "like a drug addict." She was outraged that her favorite dispensaries could be closed.A staff proposal before the City Council would allow only three medical marijuana clubs and impose licensing fees ranging from $5,000 to $15,000, a city legislative analyst said. None of the dozen or so dispensaries and suppliers is licensed by the city or state, the official said.Many medical marijuana advocates said they welcomed reasonable city or state regulation because licensing could stave off federal raids."I'm pro-regulation, but I'm against restrictions," said Jeff Jones, 29, who was designated by the city in the late 1990s to distribute marijuana. His dispensary was quickly shut down by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.Jones now issues only photo ID cards through his Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which validates physicians' recommendations for medical cannabis and oversees 10,000 regular cardholders who show the ID to club operators to make purchases. He said a limit of three dispensaries would be too low.The "Oaksterdam" nickname for the Uptown neighborhood has embarrassed city officials, who recently redeveloped the elegant City Hall plaza three blocks away and hope to extend the revitalization to the shuttered Fox movie palace that sits near at least four pot clubs on Telegraph Avenue at 18th Street.Cannabis shop owner Traylor, 29, says running a dispensary is a serious business."It's not a joke for me," she said. "It's not Oaksterdam. It's not Amsterdam. It's not recreational."Traylor, who was named to a City Hall group studying the controversy, added, "If what happens with the city results in a federal shutdown, that would put a lot of people in danger and it could affect the economics of Oakland."One councilman has said he wouldn't mind closing all the dispensaries. Mayor Jerry Brown, the former California governor who lives several blocks from the cannabis quarter, has asked for an inquiry and is perceived to be taking a cautious stand as he considers a run for state attorney general.A recent council meeting was packed largely with advocates of the state's Compassionate Use Act, which allows marijuana as a medicine for AIDS, cancer, arthritis and other ailments."Our issue is not whether we should have them. It's a question of where they should be located and how they should operate," said Willie Yee, senior policy adviser to Vice Mayor Henry Chang Jr."It's a classic land-use issue," Yee said. "You can walk down the street and you can just smell the stuff."A few months ago, leaders of the Sexual Minority Alliance of Alameda County (Smaac) Youth Center publicly complained that the facility was surrounded by at least eight cannabis clubs, including two that flanked the center. The center opened in 1998 when Jones' club was the only one around, youth leaders said.The leaders said patients were trying to resell pot to the youths. Cannabis club owners said the youths also caused problems by loitering on the street well after the clubs closed at 8 p.m. The center closed in November.Smaac Executive Director Roosevelt Moosby declined comment other than to say, "We're just really drained by all of this."Outside one of the marijuana dispensaries, the 420 Club, a man who gave his name as "Q" was standing guard, checking co-op cards before allowing visitors to enter the dispensary.The city recently threatened the club with $500 fines for letting patrons smoke inside. Among those who walk past the Telegraph clubs are pupils from Lighthouse Community Charter School, where director Jenna Stauffer said her kindergarteners and first-graders are confused by the smoke smell and her seventh-graders joke about it.When "Q'" was asked why almost all of the visitors to his club on a recent afternoon appeared to be able-bodied young men in their 20s, he insisted they possessed valid cards and added that their illnesses may not be easily visible.As for public complaints that how he and other guards resembled street hustlers, he said robberies remain a threat."This is downtown Oakland," he said. "I'm just as nervous and scared as you are."Complete Title: Oakland Considers Its Image in Weighing Limits on Cannabis ShopsSource: Chicago Tribune (IL)Author: Michael Martinez, Chicago TribunePublished: Sunday, January 18, 2004Copyright: 2004 Chicago Tribune CompanyContact: ctc-TribLetter Tribune.comWebsite: http://www.chicagotribune.com/Related Articles & Web Site:OCBChttp://www.rxcbc.org/Cannabis Clubs Put Council in Tight Spothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17694.shtmlCompeting Cannabis Clubs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17686.shtmlMedical Pot Has Council in Dithershttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17424.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by Virgil on January 19, 2004 at 10:24:15 PT
Please delete this comment
I hate to be this way, but I am just intellectually offended by making such long comments about MJ and especially if it copied in its entirety. The comments show the way media can control conversation and divert attention away from critical issues. If Michael Jackson has a story on evening news, I think it could be mentioned because it shows the news is about entertainment when the cover MJ and not the attempt of assassinating Chavez.I might go on a little but it is on the big picture and not minutae on entertainers.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Nuevo Mexican on January 19, 2004 at 09:37:01 PT
Gloovins, MJ wrapped the media around his little
finger and I loved every minute of it. Then the media beats themselves up over taking the bait, 'how could he!'Micheal is a master showman, and his show Friday Morning was spectactular! Suspect Charges of child molestation were made irrevelent, and justifyably so, by the massive showing of support by his fans. Sorry if anyone here is brain dead enough to believe someone in Law Enforcement named Tom Sneddon. I doubt there is, the same treatment Micheal is getting, is what Cannabis users have had to deal with since prohibition began. Standard procedure!This guy, and most of his Simi-Valley residing, gated community, white-flighters love this kind of 'demonizing' of the black man, and have billions of dollars available to them through the media to trumpet these ridiculous charges.
 
Micheal is the victim of the 'white mans cabal', and as a white man, I am privy to the opinions of racist white men, who feel comfortable spewing to others of the same race and sex, (their not so private, views of Michaels 'lifestyle choices). I could care less about who sleeps in his bedroom, the interview with 3 kids and their parent on Larry King was an example of how unafraid of MJ parents, and their kids are.The guys too weird to have sex with kids okay!!! He's a full moon Virgo, happy to be celibate from looking at his chart! Pedophiles run rampant in wealthy, elite, anglo circles, 
Tony Blair shut down the scandal in England by issuing court orders to the press.What really concerns me is that George Bush is still on the loose, killing and maining Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children with impunity, by the thousands, and we focus on MJ, a blessing of a distraction for bushes crimes against humanity. What bothers me is Bush hasn't been arrested, tried, drawn and quartered, a punishment way too generous for this madman whose plans include destroying the planet Earth, as soon as he gets his feet planted firmly on Mars, as he mines the moon of its minerals, shames humans ashamed of being associated with cruel, mini-me minded thugs like pretzel-boy.
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 19, 2004 at 08:21:17 PT
gloovins 
I'm sorry when I have to mention problems but this article really is about Michael Jackson and not really something for CNews but more then that you didn't post who wrote it or the copyright information. I can get in trouble for this.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by gloovins on January 19, 2004 at 03:55:30 PT
Look at the end this guy links drugs..............
To the Micahel Jackson case! "Oh its a discrace...." B MarleyMichael Jackson's lawyers should threaten to resign
Posted: January 19, 2004
 
Michael Jackson's contemptuous display outside the Santa Barbara district court on Friday is indicative of all that is wrong with the celebrity culture. While you and I were raised to respect the law, the idols of the celebrity age believe they are above any kind of law. As are all gods. You and I may have been raised to have a modicum of respect for the institution of marriage. But for a celebrity like Britney Spears, it's just something to do when you get drunk. Had Michael called a press conference outside the courtroom and condemned the charges against him with a biting tongue and raised fist, I would have had no problem. A man has a right to denounce that which he believes is false and defamatory. But to frivolously convert a trial into a rock concert demonstrated a contempt for the institution of justice itself. Say what you want about O.J. Simpson, but at least he took his trial seriously. I had hoped that the gravity of these charges against Michael would have inspired him to take stock of his life. Instead, he seems to be getting worse by the day. There is a greater chance that the Mars Rover will find life on the red planet than we here on Earth will find a wholesome celebrity. There are many reasons why our famous people are so damaged, but here's an uncomfortable truth that most of us refuse to acknowledge: Celebrities behave without restraint because we allow them to. We, the public, not only tolerate, but are entertained by these disgusting displays. Rather than finding their virtual wife-swapping – as they marry and divorce each other within days or weeks – disgusting and outrageous, we pay to read about it in Us Weekly. I have written repeatedly that I find it difficult to believe that Michael Jackson is a molester. Having said that, two of the most outstanding criminal-defense lawyers in America – Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman – watched as their client came late to court, jumped on top of an SUV to rally his desperate fans, and guided his videographers to record the carnival-like event as if it were his birthday party. Not once did we see either lawyer tugging on his jacket as he rushed to climb the SUV, refusing to allow him to make a mockery of his court appearance. Had this been any other client, any self-respecting lawyer would have shouted at them, "You pull one more outrageous stunt like that – which is embarrassing to all of us and deeply injurious to your case – and I'm outta here." But Geragos and Brafman, it seems, would never say that to Michael since that would mean giving up the spotlight of the biggest celebrity case of all time. The same was true of Michael's "60 Minutes" interview, in which he first reiterated his immoral practice of sharing a bed with children, and then made the preposterous claim that the Santa Barbara police had dislocated his shoulder, amid clear evidence to the contrary. As I watched this bizarre spectacle, I was sure that his highly respected attorney Mark Geragos would pop out from the background and scream, "Cut! Michael, are you out of your mind?" Instead, Geragos has repeatedly defended Michael's claims and called the Santa Barbara police chief a "moron." Earth to Mark Geragos: Get control of your client quick, or get out of there before your own credibility is destroyed. I was around Michael Jackson. I know how seductive that spotlight is. And I know how hard it is to cut oneself off from it. Releasing myself from the grips of my close friendship with Michael – once I concluded definitively that his chaotic lifestyle was pulling me into its vortex – was one of the hardest professional choices I have made. But it came down to the central question of my own credibility. Since I saw that Michael was no longer open to my influence to normalize his life, I would end up being yet another ineffective hanger-on to a superstar. I made a clear choice. Either Michael live by the healthy lifestyle modifications I demanded, or I would move on. And the same thing is true with his defense counsel. At what point will Geragos and Brafman say that this whole case – however gratifying from a media standpoint – just isn't worth it? We have reached the point where Michael's counsel must go in to see him and give him an ultimatum. "Either you listen to us and act like a normal human being who is constrained by the same rules as everyone else, or we resign this case." That ultimatum would be good for the lawyers and – more important – it would be good for Michael Jackson. Had the people around Michael not allowed him to get away with all the things that have ruined his life – repeated plastic surgery, being alone with boys whose parents could cast suspicion on him, removing his children from access to their mother – his life would never have deteriorated to this tragic state. The same is true for the rest of America's celebrities. It's time the public come forward and punish errant behavior by not buying CDs or attending the films of celebrities who behave like grotesque miscreants. If Pete Rose could be thrown out of baseball for betting on his sport, then why can't Hollywood celebrities who are deadbeat dads or drug abusers be punished as well? It is a privilege to be famous, and it comes with the responsibility of being an accountable role model. The conventions of normal living are not arbitrary. In the same way there are rules for taking care of a car, there are rules for taking care of a human life. Our celebrities burn out their engines quickly because they live with no respect for law. Everyone around them is afraid to enforce the rules. It's tragic enough that, like Michael Jackson, they become rusty and desiccated even while still young. But it's even worse that their dirty engines pollute the environment in which our children must be raised.Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the author of 14 books.Ahhh Rabbi, ever heard of Robert Downey Jr., Wynnoa Ryder or Chritian Slater?? Couldn't find an email for him but I'd tell him to go to The Smoking Gun. com & see mugshots. Just MHO....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 18, 2004 at 21:14:58 PT
Time Magazine Poll from October - November 2002
The Poll is still active. I just checked and these are the current results:Should marijuana be legalized? Yes -- 87.3%Yes -- but only medically - 3.1%No -- 8.9%Total Votes Cast: 208291 The New Politics of Pot : http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread14574.shtmlLink: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021104/index.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on January 18, 2004 at 21:02:59 PT
Okay, I was wrong
There was a Zogby International Poll done for the Drug Policy Alliance that said 41% of those polled thought Miracle Plant should be regulated like alcohol and tobacco. http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5682It also appeared at Cnews here- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16716.shtml Somebody corrected me on that several months ago. But you cannot find the exact question or those saying no or the undecided even at the NORML website.And the MLG question has gone unasked since the 80% number of the CNN/Time poll 15 months ago. Then there is the issue of what the Inverters call forfeiture instead of seizure. There needs to be a question out there that asked if you think someone should have their house taken for growing a plant or car taken for having a roach or similar. Most people just do not know the severity of the penalties involved. That is what got me about Rainbow Farms. I could not believe they were taking the entire farm over people using laughing grass. There is a new poll going up every day or two at DU. It sure would be nice to have some new numbers and give us a number on the seizure issue to get out there.I am even for the question of scale on the MLG issue. On a scale of one to ten with one being good policy and 10 being terrible mass murder, what do you think of the federal goverment's policy/attitude on Medical Miracle Plant?Of course if one of the 1400 daily newspapers in America cared about authentic journalism they would go down to the mall and ask them with part B- Why?I am about ready to go out and ask 20 people myself.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment