cannabisnews.com: West Hollywood Wants To Legalize Pot Use





West Hollywood Wants To Legalize Pot Use
Posted by CN Staff on June 20, 2006 at 08:08:14 PT
By Ashraf Khalil and Arin Gencer, Staff Writers
Source: Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles -- First West Hollywood officials required that pet owners be known as "pet guardians." Then they banned cat declawing and even considered outlawing pet cosmetic surgery. On Monday, the Westside town famous for its novel municipal lawmaking took a stab at legalizing the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana. But achieving that goal might prove difficult.
The City Council approved a resolution that urges the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to make marijuana-related offenses a "low priority" that deputies should largely ignore.In doing so, it became the first city in Southern California to request that its law enforcement agency look the other way at recreational pot use and target only the sale of marijuana. The vote was taken despite concerns from some residents and top aides of Sheriff Lee Baca, who had urged the council to delay the vote. Councilman John Duran proposed the resolution, saying that deputies have more important things to worry about than arresting people with small amounts of pot. Instead, he said, deputies could focus on more destructive drugs like crystal methamphetamine."We've seen that marijuana use is certainly no more dangerous and destructive than alcohol use," Duran said. "The whole 'reefer madness' hysteria has worn thin." Duran said he knew that the resolution would put Baca in an "awkward position," but said it was important for the city to take a stand."I don't think we were ever going to get the sheriff to support it," he said.San Francisco and Oakland have passed similar rules. But unlike those cities, West Hollywood lacks its own police force. Instead it contracts with the county sheriff for police services. Snipped:Complete Article: http://tinyurl.com/razesSource: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author:  Ashraf Khalil and Arin Gencer, Times Staff WritersPublished: June 20, 2006 Copyright: 2006 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/Related Articles: Leaders Vote To 'Leave The Pot Smokers Alone'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21922.shtml City Seeks Law Lowering Marijuana Priorityhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21648.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by mai_bong_city on June 20, 2006 at 21:58:57 PT
little OT but hollywood
i just finished watching Syriana which was great by the way, but i kinda' got a giggle out of the two 'second second directors usa' - their names happen to be eric a. pot and julian m. brain.:)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by global_warming on June 20, 2006 at 10:43:25 PT
It is Time
The hounds are barking,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 20, 2006 at 09:25:09 PT
goneposthole
Yes sir I agree.dog gone it anyhow, time to get real. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Max Flowers on June 20, 2006 at 09:24:34 PT
Unintentionally (?) subversive word choices
I predict that prohibition will be with us as long as people in positions of influence keep making weak, inaccurate statements like this:"We've seen that marijuana use is certainly no more dangerous and destructive than alcohol use," Duran said.instead of what is really true: cannabis is not dangerous or destructive AT ALL, and in fact is a very useful medical herb. This guy's statement above is the kind of wishy-washy proclamation that makes it sound like cannabis is capable of some kind of terrible damage, just not quite as much as alcohol---and that is totally false. In lawmaking and social policy, language and context are everything, and until people start speaking accurate, unequivocal TRUTH, we will continue to have people under the mistaken impression that cannabis is harmful. I mean yes it's true that cannabis is "no more dangerous and destructive than alcohol use," but that gives the wrong impression entirely. It's way more accurate to say "cannabis is not dangerous at all, and in fact has beneficial qualities." The only beneficial quality alcohol has is as a topical disinfectant!It's like American society has lost its grip on the English language. I find this so frustrating. Let's review the meaning of the word danger, shall we? Main Entry: dan·gerPronunciation: 'dAn-j&rFunction: nounEtymology: Middle English daunger, from Old French dangier, alteration of dongier, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin dominiarium, from Latin dominium ownership1 a archaic : JURISDICTION b obsolete : REACH, RANGE2 obsolete : HARM, DAMAGE3 : exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or lossCannabis does NOT expose people to to injury, pain, harm or loss. Therefore it is NOT dangerous. In fact, it PROTECTS people from those things!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on June 20, 2006 at 08:49:30 PT
prohibition is over?
The beginning of the end, anyway.It's about freakin' time.How about an amendment to the Constitution repealing cannabis prohibition? It's time for a change.Another amendment to the Constitution to prohibit pre-emptive war, too.And another amendment to the Constitution prohibiting socializing the costs of war while privatizing the profits.And another amendment to the Constitution reiterating the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.And another amendment to the Constitution prohibiting government lies and propaganda.dog gone it anyhow, time to get real. Have a peaceful day.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment