Bond at $5,000 ????

The face of Revolution.

"one small step by man...."

July 23, 2002, 5:36PM

San Francisco to vote on city-grown marijuana
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO -- Frustrated by the government's determination to shut down medical marijuana clubs, San Francisco is thinking about growing its own.

The Board of Supervisors voted late today to put a measure on the November ballot that would have city officials explore the possibility of growing marijuana on publicly owned lots and distributing it to ill patients.

Supporters said the program could double as job training for the unemployed.

"I don't think it would be all that dramatic a venture," said Supervisor Mark Leno, who proposed the idea with three colleagues.

California was the first state to approve the use of marijuana for medical ailments, in 1996.

San Francisco already issues medical marijuana use cards to patients who have a doctor's permission. Police here have refused to participate in any raids and last year city leaders declared San Francisco a sanctuary for medical cannabis use.

Leno said the city health department or another agency could distribute city-grown pot. He said he drafted the proposal because the Drug Enforcement Administration remains determined to close down medical marijuana clubs across California.

When DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson spoke here in February, Leno was protesting out front with a bullhorn.

"If the federal government is going to continue to harass and shut down these clubs, then I think it's the city's responsibility to take action," he said. "If 60 or 70 percent of voters say 'yes,' the supervisors would be on very solid ground knowing that voters would be with us."

Cultivating, possessing and distributing marijuana are illegal under federal law. DEA spokesman Richard Meyer if San Francisco began growing marijuana, it could expect a crackdown.

"Unless Congress changes the law and makes marijuana a legal substance, then we have to do our job and enforce the law, whether or not it's popular," he said.

San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who has supported medical marijuana clubs, was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

Medical marijuana advocates lauded the ballot measure.

"The real fight we've been having is distribution," said Wayne Justmann, who's been HIV positive for more than 15 years, carries the first city-issued ID card and operates one of San Francisco's 11 remaining pot clubs.

JimmyK said:

"Unless Congress changes the law and makes marijuana a legal substance, then we have to do our job and enforce the law, whether or not it's popular," he said.

Click to expand...

I thought the whole point of the constitution was to give states the right to govern themselvs? "weather or not it's popular" Um, isn't the whole Idea behind democracy that the popular vote determines the decisions of the government. If Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the rest of the crew were still alive theyd sh it a brick and start blowing stuff up.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Hey BJG.....


"Cultivating, possessing and distributing marijuana are illegal under federal law. DEA spokesman Richard Meyer if San Francisco began growing marijuana, it could expect a crackdown.

"Unless Congress changes the law and makes marijuana a legal substance, then we have to do our job and enforce the law, whether or not it's popular," he said."


Sorry but I just feel better quoteing the entire context of the statement that you quoted me as having makeing. ( LOL did I say that? LOL!)

FOR THE RECORD
The "he said" is Richard Meyer, and not JimmyK.

Thanks

I'm all for legalizing marihuana for the patients who need it. It isn't just to get high. The side effects of increased hunger from marihuana use is vital to the health of the A.I.D.S and cancer patients. With the side effects of the medications they take, they need increased caloric intake. So the DEA states that cultivation, distribution, and possession are illegal, then it should be changed or amended. Alright, the general public thinks that 'dope' rots the brain. Scientific studies show that alcohol kills far more brain cells than 'pot'. As a matter of fact, from what I've studied it stops connections from synapse to synapse. The cells aren't destroyed at all. And if we remember from Anatomy and Physiology class, ladies and gentlemen, the brain has a remarkable ability to reconnect neural pathways.(How does the person, who had half his brain removed, learn how to walk and talk again?) Detox. from alcohol can even kill you! It seem moronic to me when one could go to Amsterdam, Netherlands and go to a bar and smoke what they want. The drug problem there isn't half of the U.S.'s. OUR government grows and cultivates it's own 'weed'. Our Armed Forces die in forgein lands defending Our constiution, which is written on HEMP paper. Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, grew marihauna.(O.K. Jefferson probably didn't smoke it for indigestion, but to make rope) But, I think you get the idea. The war on drugs is a waste...a waste of taxpayer's money, a burden on our jail system, and people suffer for it.

Legalize it....all. Hey, who here on the forum, if you have never tried marihuana, would go out tomorrow and buy a fat bag?(or even the ones of you who have) Who would go out and purchase 'crack' or cocaine? Would people become 'addicted' and not go to work? (By the way, marihuana has NO addictive properties physiologically) Would our economy shut down, because once hard working Americans just sat at home 'firing up'? If you don't use now, you probably wouldn't become a user once it is legal.(And talk about the reveneu generated!!) Let's not forget that in either the '20s or '30s, you could go and purchase herion and cocaine off the shelf. We just wouldn't lay down for Prohibition, though.
And what about the uneducated 'hood rats' who push drugs to our unsuspecting children? Put the fu*kers out of a job! Why go to the local dealer, when I can buy what I want from the local pharmacy? I get so PI**ED when I go to my hometown and see uneducated, worthless pieces of sh*t who roll in their new BMWs and Mercedes-Benz, who get their money by slanggin dope. I've got a bachelors in science and working on another, but I don't make the green they do!! Shoot, maybe I need to get a 'hook-up' while I'm here in Europe and go home a sell dope.(Maybe then I won't have to worry about getting a loan for the RoadKing I want) Sorry. Touchy subject. Just my $1.00s worth. Comments welcomed. J.T.

Yeah Sidewalk. I was hoping that the psychological addictive things would get by........dang it. You are probably right about the carbon monoxide, because it competes with O2 for uptake. However, THC, as we all know, the active drug doesn't kill brain cells.

I know what you mean about production, but it is possible. I lived in Richmond, VA and knew a guy who tested tobacco for R.J. Reynolds.(He smoked cig.s, but tested the tobacco with chemicals) He told me that Reynolds has storage areas, where they hold Gov't marihuana. If it passed Congress, R.J. Reynolds could go into production of 'joints' in little or no time. This was in '94, I think. (Too much malted hopps and bong resin to remember.)
However, 'pot' smoke isn't as carcinogenic as tobacco smoke. I've read a study done by a M.D. from Harvard.(Dim supose to be da smaat ones) But you know how medical studies go, if they really want to prove their hypothesis........... Thanks for allowing me up on the soapbox. J.T.