DC really needs to get pot “gifting” stores under control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I am really grossed out by the “gifting” stores popping up everywhere with their ugly storefronts, crime, and loiterers outside smoking weed and acting like they own the sidewalk. The DC council really needs to get on top of this and required them to be licensed by ABRA, inspected for dangerous products packaged like candy, and allow ANCs to protest and get settlement agreements about crowd management, smoking in front, and safety. Plus there should not be multiple shops on one block. Does the Council want DC to be a sketchy version of Amsterdam?

DC can't regulate it. Congress does not allow sales in DC.

DC can absolutely regulate it. Everyone knows they are distributing weed inside those stores.

They can not regulate it. They can force it back into the open air markets, but that just makes it more likely your kids will have accidental fentynl poisoning. Would be really stupid. What would be great is if they could actually regulate and ensure that people weren’t being poisoned.

Of course they can regulate it. I’m not sure what grounds you have to make that claim. At a minimum, existing laws allow DC to take action against smoking in front and selling edibles packaged like candy.

They cannot regulate it because they cannot legalize it. Congress is preventing them from doing so https://www.npr.org/local/305/2022/03/10/1085701595/congress-maintains-ban-on-d-c-legalizing-sales-of-recreational-marijuana#:~:text=Because%20D.C.%20is%20not%20a,forward%20on%20legalizing%20marijuana%20sales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a Democrat but this is not acceptable, and if the mayor, City Council, and police department can't figure out what to do about it, I'll be voting with my feet by leaving because I do not want to raise a child in a place where no one seems to give a damn.

Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Be careful what you wish for.

There were people who think DC’s dark days in the 80s and 90s were great, because they mostly got to do what they wanted. Drugs, violence, government corruption— it was all common and accepted. Everyone else left, if they could, or stayed and suffered. The city’s tax base barely existed and anyone who wanted to actually improve the lives of families and workers in the city got shouted down.

If you think returning to that era is a great idea, I hope you are ready for the side effects— development hitting a wall, property values declining, middle and UM class families fleeing for suburbs, pulling money out if the school system, public works projects falling by the wayside.

But hey— free or practically free weed, and you can smoke it wherever you want. Hope it’s worth it!

Oh no, because I can order overprice cookies, pizza slices, or a tee shirt and get a "free" dime bag of weed, the crack epidemic and utter lawlessness will return!!!!11111oneoneeleven

It’s not cause and effect. But when the response to people saying “this unregulated, semi-legal drug activity in my neighborhood is leading to other behaviors that make it hard to raise a family here” is greeted with derision, and when violent crime increases with no response from city government, yes, you will see chunks of the city’s tax base leaving, and an increase in lawlessness.

No one is saying re-criminalize weed. We’re saying: regulate weed sales (or weed “sales”) and address externalities of these businesses. That’s actually not a big ask. That it’s seen as one is ridiculous.

Except it IS a big ask, because our city's leadership don't have control over this due to Congressional override.

Will you STOP repeating this lie? DC absolutely has the ability to regulate the “gifting” shops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I am really grossed out by the “gifting” stores popping up everywhere with their ugly storefronts, crime, and loiterers outside smoking weed and acting like they own the sidewalk. The DC council really needs to get on top of this and required them to be licensed by ABRA, inspected for dangerous products packaged like candy, and allow ANCs to protest and get settlement agreements about crowd management, smoking in front, and safety. Plus there should not be multiple shops on one block. Does the Council want DC to be a sketchy version of Amsterdam?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a Democrat but this is not acceptable, and if the mayor, City Council, and police department can't figure out what to do about it, I'll be voting with my feet by leaving because I do not want to raise a child in a place where no one seems to give a damn.

Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Be careful what you wish for.

There were people who think DC’s dark days in the 80s and 90s were great, because they mostly got to do what they wanted. Drugs, violence, government corruption— it was all common and accepted. Everyone else left, if they could, or stayed and suffered. The city’s tax base barely existed and anyone who wanted to actually improve the lives of families and workers in the city got shouted down.

If you think returning to that era is a great idea, I hope you are ready for the side effects— development hitting a wall, property values declining, middle and UM class families fleeing for suburbs, pulling money out if the school system, public works projects falling by the wayside.

But hey— free or practically free weed, and you can smoke it wherever you want. Hope it’s worth it!

Oh no, because I can order overprice cookies, pizza slices, or a tee shirt and get a "free" dime bag of weed, the crack epidemic and utter lawlessness will return!!!!11111oneoneeleven

It’s not cause and effect. But when the response to people saying “this unregulated, semi-legal drug activity in my neighborhood is leading to other behaviors that make it hard to raise a family here” is greeted with derision, and when violent crime increases with no response from city government, yes, you will see chunks of the city’s tax base leaving, and an increase in lawlessness.

No one is saying re-criminalize weed. We’re saying: regulate weed sales (or weed “sales”) and address externalities of these businesses. That’s actually not a big ask. That it’s seen as one is ridiculous.

Except it IS a big ask, because our city's leadership don't have control over this due to Congressional override.

Will you STOP repeating this lie? DC absolutely has the ability to regulate the “gifting” shops.

Educate yourself please. Andy Harris blocked DC from passing cannabis regulations.

[Anonymous]

What’s with the puritan crusade on DCUM these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You buy an item like a t shirt or art print, and the weed is a “gift.” It circumvents the law. Rec weed was voted in years ago, but DC has never implemented it. So the workaround is to have shops that gift weed, and no local enforcement. Gotta love living in DC!

The gift thing isn’t really a work around. It doesn’t make it legal. It’s just a myth and sort of tradition, and I think the city supports it because it keeps the product out of sight.

It doesn’t keep the product out of sight, though. People hang around these stores and smoke in the stores and out front. I think the weird work around contributes to a sense of lawlessness, like “we’re getting away with something” that makes it worse.

I’m from Colorado where sales are legal, businesses have to be licensed, and the state collect tax revenue from sales. It’s much better— weed stores are like liquor stores, they are very conservative about enforcement. They check IDs when you enter, they discourage smoking in front of the building, especially in pedestrian heavy areas, etc. It’s truly legalized and treated like alcohol, which means it’s regulated like alcohol too.

DC’s “arrangement” sucks. I’d honestly rather have it be entirely illegal than this, though I support legalization generally.

Honestly you’ve just never lived in a neighborhood with a nuisance liquor store. Trust me, even tightly regulated liquor stores can be a huge problem.

Lol. I think these pearl clutchers here flipping out over some cookie & weed shop in AdMo or U St would lose their minds if they ever saw Big Ben Liquor store back when Sursum Corda was still mostly standing.

Oh is this the vibrant DC culture we should be preserving? Sursum Corda and skanky liquor stores? Sorry, no, good riddance.

For the record, I don’t gaf if you smoke weed. I DO care if you make the block unpleasant to walk down.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s with the puritan crusade on DCUM these days?

Backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s with the puritan crusade on DCUM these days?

Nobody cares if you buy/smoke pot. We care if you create new nuisances and decrease the quality of life on our blocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a Democrat but this is not acceptable, and if the mayor, City Council, and police department can't figure out what to do about it, I'll be voting with my feet by leaving because I do not want to raise a child in a place where no one seems to give a damn.

Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Be careful what you wish for.

There were people who think DC’s dark days in the 80s and 90s were great, because they mostly got to do what they wanted. Drugs, violence, government corruption— it was all common and accepted. Everyone else left, if they could, or stayed and suffered. The city’s tax base barely existed and anyone who wanted to actually improve the lives of families and workers in the city got shouted down.

If you think returning to that era is a great idea, I hope you are ready for the side effects— development hitting a wall, property values declining, middle and UM class families fleeing for suburbs, pulling money out if the school system, public works projects falling by the wayside.

But hey— free or practically free weed, and you can smoke it wherever you want. Hope it’s worth it!

Oh no, because I can order overprice cookies, pizza slices, or a tee shirt and get a "free" dime bag of weed, the crack epidemic and utter lawlessness will return!!!!11111oneoneeleven

It’s not cause and effect. But when the response to people saying “this unregulated, semi-legal drug activity in my neighborhood is leading to other behaviors that make it hard to raise a family here” is greeted with derision, and when violent crime increases with no response from city government, yes, you will see chunks of the city’s tax base leaving, and an increase in lawlessness.

No one is saying re-criminalize weed. We’re saying: regulate weed sales (or weed “sales”) and address externalities of these businesses. That’s actually not a big ask. That it’s seen as one is ridiculous.

Except it IS a big ask, because our city's leadership don't have control over this due to Congressional override.

Will you STOP repeating this lie? DC absolutely has the ability to regulate the “gifting” shops.

No, you’re wrong. They have the ability to shut them down, but they don’t have the ability to make specific new rules allowing legal marijuana sales within new parameters or conditions. Since voters passed a law legalizing recreational possession and use, the city can’t really opt just to shut these shops down. What they’d like to do is set up a regulatory scheme with inspections, taxes, etc., but that’s not possible now.

You say “regulate” when you mean “close” here, but that’s not what the city or most residents want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s with the puritan crusade on DCUM these days?

NP here, and they absolutely should be regulated because they are selling to minors. I found a name on a stash I found in my kid's room that led to one of these shops. If that makes me a puritan, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh is this the vibrant DC culture we should be preserving? Sursum Corda and skanky liquor stores? Sorry, no, good riddance.

For the record, I don’t gaf if you smoke weed. I DO care if you make the block unpleasant to walk down.

Carjackings are taking place at record highs in DC. Murders are at their highest rates in decades. And you're crying about grey market shops that sell a plant?



OK.

According to some, those carjackings and murders are part of "DC culture" and just "the regular city experience."

[Anonymous]

I live a block from Georgia Ave, where there are about six shops in a two or three block stretch. I don’t see them as a nuisance that OP describes - no loiterers and they just look like all the other shops on the street. Columbia Heights plaza a few blocks a way is the real nuisance zone from drunks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s with the puritan crusade on DCUM these days?

NP here, and they absolutely should be regulated because they are selling to minors. I found a name on a stash I found in my kid's room that led to one of these shops. If that makes me a puritan, so be it.

They are selling it to people 21+ who are selling it to your kid, silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a Democrat but this is not acceptable, and if the mayor, City Council, and police department can't figure out what to do about it, I'll be voting with my feet by leaving because I do not want to raise a child in a place where no one seems to give a damn.

Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Be careful what you wish for.

There were people who think DC’s dark days in the 80s and 90s were great, because they mostly got to do what they wanted. Drugs, violence, government corruption— it was all common and accepted. Everyone else left, if they could, or stayed and suffered. The city’s tax base barely existed and anyone who wanted to actually improve the lives of families and workers in the city got shouted down.

If you think returning to that era is a great idea, I hope you are ready for the side effects— development hitting a wall, property values declining, middle and UM class families fleeing for suburbs, pulling money out if the school system, public works projects falling by the wayside.

But hey— free or practically free weed, and you can smoke it wherever you want. Hope it’s worth it!

Oh no, because I can order overprice cookies, pizza slices, or a tee shirt and get a "free" dime bag of weed, the crack epidemic and utter lawlessness will return!!!!11111oneoneeleven

It’s not cause and effect. But when the response to people saying “this unregulated, semi-legal drug activity in my neighborhood is leading to other behaviors that make it hard to raise a family here” is greeted with derision, and when violent crime increases with no response from city government, yes, you will see chunks of the city’s tax base leaving, and an increase in lawlessness.

No one is saying re-criminalize weed. We’re saying: regulate weed sales (or weed “sales”) and address externalities of these businesses. That’s actually not a big ask. That it’s seen as one is ridiculous.

Except it IS a big ask, because our city's leadership don't have control over this due to Congressional override.

Will you STOP repeating this lie? DC absolutely has the ability to regulate the “gifting” shops.

No, you’re wrong. They have the ability to shut them down, but they don’t have the ability to make specific new rules allowing legal marijuana sales within new parameters or conditions. Since voters passed a law legalizing recreational possession and use, the city can’t really opt just to shut these shops down. What they’d like to do is set up a regulatory scheme with inspections, taxes, etc., but that’s not possible now.

You say “regulate” when you mean “close” here, but that’s not what the city or most residents want.

False. The city could seize at a minimum products that violate consumer safety standards (eg packaged to look like candy) and also take enforcement action against people who distribute to children, allow smoking outside, etc. If they are going to maintain the legal fiction that “gifting” does not violate I-71, then they can also issue regulations about when, where and how “gifting” occurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a Democrat but this is not acceptable, and if the mayor, City Council, and police department can't figure out what to do about it, I'll be voting with my feet by leaving because I do not want to raise a child in a place where no one seems to give a damn.

Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Be careful what you wish for.

There were people who think DC’s dark days in the 80s and 90s were great, because they mostly got to do what they wanted. Drugs, violence, government corruption— it was all common and accepted. Everyone else left, if they could, or stayed and suffered. The city’s tax base barely existed and anyone who wanted to actually improve the lives of families and workers in the city got shouted down.

If you think returning to that era is a great idea, I hope you are ready for the side effects— development hitting a wall, property values declining, middle and UM class families fleeing for suburbs, pulling money out if the school system, public works projects falling by the wayside.

But hey— free or practically free weed, and you can smoke it wherever you want. Hope it’s worth it!

Oh no, because I can order overprice cookies, pizza slices, or a tee shirt and get a "free" dime bag of weed, the crack epidemic and utter lawlessness will return!!!!11111oneoneeleven

It’s not cause and effect. But when the response to people saying “this unregulated, semi-legal drug activity in my neighborhood is leading to other behaviors that make it hard to raise a family here” is greeted with derision, and when violent crime increases with no response from city government, yes, you will see chunks of the city’s tax base leaving, and an increase in lawlessness.

No one is saying re-criminalize weed. We’re saying: regulate weed sales (or weed “sales”) and address externalities of these businesses. That’s actually not a big ask. That it’s seen as one is ridiculous.

Except it IS a big ask, because our city's leadership don't have control over this due to Congressional override.

Will you STOP repeating this lie? DC absolutely has the ability to regulate the “gifting” shops.

No, you’re wrong. They have the ability to shut them down, but they don’t have the ability to make specific new rules allowing legal marijuana sales within new parameters or conditions. Since voters passed a law legalizing recreational possession and use, the city can’t really opt just to shut these shops down. What they’d like to do is set up a regulatory scheme with inspections, taxes, etc., but that’s not possible now.

You say “regulate” when you mean “close” here, but that’s not what the city or most residents want.

False. The city could seize at a minimum products that violate consumer safety standards (eg packaged to look like candy) and also take enforcement action against people who distribute to children, allow smoking outside, etc. If they are going to maintain the legal fiction that “gifting” does not violate I-71, then they can also issue regulations about when, where and how “gifting” occurs.

How is the smoking outside is their issue to enforce?