cannabisnews.com: Newsom Offers Plan To Regulate Pot Clubs 





Newsom Offers Plan To Regulate Pot Clubs 
Posted by CN Staff on April 22, 2005 at 08:07:01 PT
By Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
S.F. Calif. -- With the number of known medical marijuana clubs in San Francisco now up to 43, Mayor Gavin Newsom proposed on Thursday a number of regulations he hopes will "address legitimate neighborhood concerns regarding the location, proliferation and security of these dispensaries.'' The recommendations -- many already outlined in state law pertaining to medical marijuana -- range from forbidding the clubs to operate within 1,000 feet of places where young people congregate, such as playgrounds and schools, to requiring that operators adhere to good-neighbor policies.
The mayor wants to make sure no one drinks alcohol on the premises, that minimum security, ventilation and lighting standards are maintained, and that enforcement procedures are put in place to assure that no one is selling or buying the controlled substance in violation of Proposition 215, the California law approved by voters in 1996 that sanctioned medical marijuana for qualified patients. Dispensaries would have to open their books to city inspectors to verify that they're operating as a not-for-profit business cooperative or collective, as required by the state, and that only primary caregivers and authorized patients are buying the marijuana. Advocates may fight that provision for fear federal authorities could seize those records in a raid. The U.S. government and federal courts have held that cannabis, even if used for medicinal purposes, is illegal. Another Newsom recommendation: Prospective operators would be required to notify neighbors of their intent to open a club, and the Planning Department would have to OK the operation. The closest municipal regulation pertaining to medicinal marijuana clubs the city now has on its books is the requirement that operators secure a building permit if the existing use of the property needs to be changed. However, only a handful of the dispensaries have complied. "The fact is,'' said Newsom, who described himself as a strong proponent of medical marijuana, "we're the one county left to our knowledge in the state (with) multiple marijuana dispensaries that has no regulations whatsoever.'' Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/regulate.htmSource: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished:  Friday, April 22, 2005 - Page A - 1Copyright: 2005 San Francisco Chronicle Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Related Articles & Web Site:Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htm More Rules Needed for Pot Clubs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20531.shtmlNewsom Declares Moratorium on Marijuana Clubshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20387.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by unkat27 on April 23, 2005 at 11:39:14 PT
How many Liquor Stores?
Just for the record, I'd like to know how many liqour stores there are in CA, in contrast.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on April 23, 2005 at 07:56:28 PT
Public Hearings Set for Pot Club Rules
Suzanne HerelSaturday, April 23, 2005 S.F. -- The Board of Supervisors on Monday will hold the first of a series of public hearings on regulating medical marijuana clinics in the city. Among the topics will be the possibility of establishing licensing fees, implementing zoning requirements, regulating safe access guidelines and creating consumer protection principles by the Department of Consumer Assurance. The hearing is the last item on the agenda of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee, which meets at 1 p.m. in Room 263 of City Hall. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, concerned about the burgeoning number of largely unregulated pot clubs in the city, led a push last month for a 45-day moratorium on new dispensaries until city officials could come up with guidelines. Page B - 2http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/23/BAGL7CDAGD1.DTL
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Max Flowers on April 22, 2005 at 16:24:45 PT
Totally On-Topic (federal cannabis prohibition)
(from a much longer and more detailed essay at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm )FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONIt is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears;" see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963). And this principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial); Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial); Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (holding securities act as territorial). This was perhaps stated best in Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215, where the Supreme Court stated as follows:  "The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."But, because of statutory language, certain federal drug laws operate extra-territorially; see United States v. King, 552 F.2d 833, 851 (9th Cir. 1976). The United States has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of the United States. However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American Union. And this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on April 22, 2005 at 16:22:42 PT
News Brief from The Associated Press
News in Brief From the San Francisco Bay AreaApril 22, 2005SAN FRANCISCO - Mayor Gavin Newsom is proposing new regulations for the city's 43 medical marijuana clubs that dispense to the sick and dying.The proposal prohibits operations within 1,000 feet from schools and playgrounds, and requires minimum security, ventilation and measures ensuring that only patients with a doctor's recommendation actually receive marijuana.The proposal also requires that clubs operate as nonprofit business cooperatives or collectives.Proposed new clubs would be required to notify neighbors, and secure the Planning Department's approval.There are virtually no regulations for San Francisco's clubs that dispense marijuana under a ballot measure approved by California voters in 1996. An operating license, combined with an undetermined amount of fees, are also under consideration.A 45-day moratorium Newsom enacted for new clubs expires on May 15. He wants to expand that until he and the Board of Supervisors finalize the regulations.A hearing on the issue is scheduled for Monday at City Hall.Copyright: 2005 The Assocated Presshttp://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/11465716.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Max Flowers on April 22, 2005 at 11:41:35 PT
I'm so sick of the BS
 - Dispensaries would have to open their books to city inspectors to verify that they're operating as a not-for-profit business cooperative or collective, as required by the state, and that only primary caregivers and authorized patients are buying the marijuana.Advocates may fight that provision for fear federal authorities could seize those records in a raid. The U.S. government and federal courts have held that cannabis, even if used for medicinal purposes, is illegal. - I'll tell you what's illegal---what's illegal is when a federal agency tromps into the sovereign territotry of a state and starts searching for records and conducting an illegal search where it does not truly have jurisdiction. Any lawyers in the house? Look it up, they are not actually allowed to do that. Constitution ring a bell? How about Bill Of Rights?The places they can do that legally are: 
  * Washington D.C.
  * American Samoa
  * Baker Island
  * Guam
  * Howland Island
  * Jarvis Island
  * Johnston Atoll
  * Kingman Reef
  * Midway Islands
  * Navassa Island
  * Northern Mariana Islands
  * Palmyra Atoll
  * Puerto Rico
  * Virgin Islands
  * Wake IslandHey feds, CALIFORNIA ain't one of your "possessions"!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by runruff on April 22, 2005 at 08:49:21 PT:
Andrea Barthwell
As you can see The Barfster is showing her true nature with this Sativex thing. I believe one could pay her to show her entire but in public. 
 If it were not for her degree[which she admits to getting while smoking pot and partying for 15 years in college] She would be standing among the colorfuly dress dates for hire down on Sunset Blvd. Her lack of having any appeal at all probably drove her to get an education.Don't be concerned with maybe hurting her feelings. People like her have very thick skins.
She fells she is above our meanial criticisms.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by potpal on April 22, 2005 at 08:15:51 PT
ot - absurd comparison
Maybe this will lead to a ban on technology...think of the children.'Infomania' worse than marijuana 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4471607.stm 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment