SFist: SF Supervisor Proposes Municipal Weed Dispensaries

spysea

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:01:33 -0800

crocodile tears

spysea

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:00:37 -0800

You silly loon....wow your stupider than you seem .. I worked in PAKISTAN and have been to Jamaica , personal consumption is legal and or not prosecuted. You should maybe stop smoking that good Ishtar hash...

mmathers

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:19:18 -0800

Q: You want more revenue for SF out of weed? A: Tax the shit out of it and raise the cost of permits! All the currently run pot shops need the approval of the city and state govts to avoid running afoul of the feds. This means they need to pay their taxes and have all the necessary permits. There is no reason for SF to run a dispensary unless a) it's for the common good (like fire fighting, for example) b) you need to subsidize the cost and share the expenses among all the people. Guess what? Dispensaries fail both criteria. Devin's got the right idea. Wanna sell pot (legally) in SF? Buy a permit at auction and give SF it's "taste" of the profits. -g

largo01

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:29:51 -0800

This isn't a bad idea. The Obama administration isn't bringing charges against dispensaries that are complying with state law, so no. not illegal. Furthermore, it would bring in revenue to the City. I'm all for it.

Devin

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:04:55 -0800

How about the City auctions Dispensary Medallions like the taxi medallion scheme? This could money very quickly for the City's deficit. Just look at how fast many of the existing clubs ponied up the money for an official permit and for the cost of remodeling to meet handicap accessibility standards.

dantsea

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:37:40 -0800

Go cry some more, neocon.

bardwell

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:44:21 -0800

wow, good one.

hillarys_quivering_lip

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:39:00 -0800

Of course, weed is ILLEGAL in both Jamaica *and* Pakistan...but we don't expect you to really have much in the way of facts. How's the teabagging coming along?

underachieving

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:23:48 -0800

Yeah... I don't get the point of it, either. On the one hand, at least some dispensaries in town (like the one I patronize... often) are very nicely well-run, professional establishments. I feel less sketchy there than I do buying a Diet Coke at Walgreen's. (It's also funny with the fire fighters from next store drop by and hang out.) Assuming they pay their taxes (Weed tax?) and aren't selling heroin out of a backroom, I have no problem with the current, privately-owned dispensary system. And, uh, what exactly does the City/County run well at all? I can imagine a city-run dispensary with nothing but shake and stale brownies with a bunch of bored and high employees who couldn't tell indica from Indonesia. (With a picture of Ross Mirkarimi on the wall behind them!) Seriously, graffiti, homelessness, budget shortfalls, the lack of Vietnamese sandwiches in the FiDi, adding more police on the beat, Chris Daly, the crazy ABC/music venue showdown, my lonely heart, and the difficulty of spelling Ross Mirkarimi's last name are all problems I'd rather see the City/County tackle first. Get your head out of your ass, Supervisor Mirkarimi. Thank you.

spysea

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:15:17 -0800

Remember selling... weed is ILLEGALin the USA , if you don't like it go to Amsterdam or Pakistan or Jamacia.... get over it. I am not a fan of the law but the city selling weed .... now your high!

mmathers

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:03:15 -0800

Municipalities should own operations that perform for the common good. Things like fire fighting, police, libraries and in some cases water/power plants make sense. However, what could we possibly have to gain by running a marijuana dispensery besides exposure to litigation? Cost subsidization?! Now, I have no problems with folks smoking a little bud just as long as the stank smell doesn't waft into my home. This of course, does NOT mean I'm willing to subsidize your bad habit even if it helps you with your cataracts or anxiety. This supe is a complete clown. -mm

lanersg

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:39:15 -0800

Seriously, the city can't run anything efficiently. You'd have an overinflated payroll filled with incompetent people so the weed would cost even more than the local pot clubs.

DJBurrito

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:40:52 -0800

I sent this idea to Gavin weeks ago via twitter. It not a bad plan. Economic development/Infrustructure development money, homeless services, substance abuse services could all benefit from these revenue streams. They should earmark 51 % of profits to social services.

martooni

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:17:54 -0800

The Chron's article included this hilarious quote from Gavin's press secretary: "The mayor will have to hash this out with public health officials," press secretary Nathan Ballard said. "It's the mayor's job to weed out bad legislation. And to be blunt, this sounds pretty bad."

RobInSF

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:11:45 -0800

Until the thick headed goons at the DEA surround the city and start spraying automatic weapons at the freako hippies smoking the dope. You know, because drugs are bad, mmmmkay...