Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they are gifting or officially selling - the real problem with these stores is that they are all cash operations and there have been muggings in the nearby areas because the customers have to carry cash. The feds need to make it straight out legal so that the stores can use banks/credit cards and can thus pay taxes to make up for all of the nuisance they bring into communities.

And I'm not anti-legalization. But these are barely businesses of any sort.

Or, DC could enforce the law and close the illegal “gifting” shops.

But the D.C. government and most people in D.C. don't actually want this. What most people want is for the shops to operate legally, paying taxes and under a regulatory regime. Andy Harris, a dude from Maryland who gets to decide what the D.C. government does because he's in Congress, doesn't want this. So we don't get that.

You want the city to look at a situation where we can have either this decidedly flawed gray zone or no legalization at all and opt for no legalization at all. The city has decided to opt for the gray zone.

It should all change a bit soon, anyway, though, since they're allowing the I-71 shops to get certified under the existing medicinal marijuana regulatory system. Do you have any complaints about how the medicinal shops have operated up to now? Maybe you'll like it better when ABRA is in charge of all non-black-market weed sales in D.C. (there will also still be plenty of totally illegal drug sales regardless, I suspect).

The dubious people running the illegal “gifting” shops are not going to run out and get licensed as dispensaries. DC is still going to have to shut them down. DC isn’t pro prohibition, but we still shut down bars that don’t follow the rules.

Why would they not run out and get licensed as dispensaries? The whole point is that would allow them to keep operating without D.C. shutting them down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they are gifting or officially selling - the real problem with these stores is that they are all cash operations and there have been muggings in the nearby areas because the customers have to carry cash. The feds need to make it straight out legal so that the stores can use banks/credit cards and can thus pay taxes to make up for all of the nuisance they bring into communities.

And I'm not anti-legalization. But these are barely businesses of any sort.

Or, DC could enforce the law and close the illegal “gifting” shops.

But the D.C. government and most people in D.C. don't actually want this. What most people want is for the shops to operate legally, paying taxes and under a regulatory regime. Andy Harris, a dude from Maryland who gets to decide what the D.C. government does because he's in Congress, doesn't want this. So we don't get that.

You want the city to look at a situation where we can have either this decidedly flawed gray zone or no legalization at all and opt for no legalization at all. The city has decided to opt for the gray zone.

It should all change a bit soon, anyway, though, since they're allowing the I-71 shops to get certified under the existing medicinal marijuana regulatory system. Do you have any complaints about how the medicinal shops have operated up to now? Maybe you'll like it better when ABRA is in charge of all non-black-market weed sales in D.C. (there will also still be plenty of totally illegal drug sales regardless, I suspect).

The dubious people running the illegal “gifting” shops are not going to run out and get licensed as dispensaries. DC is still going to have to shut them down. DC isn’t pro prohibition, but we still shut down bars that don’t follow the rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they are gifting or officially selling - the real problem with these stores is that they are all cash operations and there have been muggings in the nearby areas because the customers have to carry cash. The feds need to make it straight out legal so that the stores can use banks/credit cards and can thus pay taxes to make up for all of the nuisance they bring into communities.

And I'm not anti-legalization. But these are barely businesses of any sort.

Or, DC could enforce the law and close the illegal “gifting” shops.

But the D.C. government and most people in D.C. don't actually want this. What most people want is for the shops to operate legally, paying taxes and under a regulatory regime. Andy Harris, a dude from Maryland who gets to decide what the D.C. government does because he's in Congress, doesn't want this. So we don't get that.

You want the city to look at a situation where we can have either this decidedly flawed gray zone or no legalization at all and opt for no legalization at all. The city has decided to opt for the gray zone.

It should all change a bit soon, anyway, though, since they're allowing the I-71 shops to get certified under the existing medicinal marijuana regulatory system. Do you have any complaints about how the medicinal shops have operated up to now? Maybe you'll like it better when ABRA is in charge of all non-black-market weed sales in D.C. (there will also still be plenty of totally illegal drug sales regardless, I suspect).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they are gifting or officially selling - the real problem with these stores is that they are all cash operations and there have been muggings in the nearby areas because the customers have to carry cash. The feds need to make it straight out legal so that the stores can use banks/credit cards and can thus pay taxes to make up for all of the nuisance they bring into communities.

And I'm not anti-legalization. But these are barely businesses of any sort.

Or, DC could enforce the law and close the illegal “gifting” shops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is prohibited by the rider that prohibits the city from spending any money setting up a regulatory regime for legal weed.

Too bad then, I guess they just have to shut the “gifting” shops down with law enforcement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they are gifting or officially selling - the real problem with these stores is that they are all cash operations and there have been muggings in the nearby areas because the customers have to carry cash. The feds need to make it straight out legal so that the stores can use banks/credit cards and can thus pay taxes to make up for all of the nuisance they bring into communities.

And I'm not anti-legalization. But these are barely businesses of any sort.

Or, DC could enforce the law and close the illegal “gifting” shops.

Anonymous wrote:Gifting?

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they are gifting or officially selling - the real problem with these stores is that they are all cash operations and there have been muggings in the nearby areas because the customers have to carry cash. The feds need to make it straight out legal so that the stores can use banks/credit cards and can thus pay taxes to make up for all of the nuisance they bring into communities.

And I'm not anti-legalization. But these are barely businesses of any sort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not regulating the gifting shops, though, as none of that is permitted under existing laws or rules.

You’re wrong. Do you think the “gifting” shops have some kind of immunity to law? Everything I listed is possible. And I didn’t even list the main thing, which is possession of over 1 ounce.

No, my point is: They can enforce those existing laws about children, smoking outside, etc., though I suspect some of what you want is also impossible, unless there are existing consumer safety regulations that can be read to cover packaging on cannabis edibles. What they can't do is set up rules to describe what the gift shops can and can't allow, thanks to Congress, in its infinite wisdom. They cannot issue regulations at all about how the gift shops operate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is prohibited by the rider that prohibits the city from spending any money setting up a regulatory regime for legal weed.

Too bad then, I guess they just have to shut the “gifting” shops down with law enforcement.

Why would law enforcement shut down legal stores that the citizens asked for in the first place? Law enforcement works for the law abiding members of the community who voted to legalize cannabis. They are not your personal goon squad to unleash against your neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not regulating the gifting shops, though, as none of that is permitted under existing laws or rules.

You’re wrong. Do you think the “gifting” shops have some kind of immunity to law? Everything I listed is possible. And I didn’t even list the main thing, which is possession of over 1 ounce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Murder and carjacking rates are skyhigh in DC and your solution is to waste already valuable and scarce police resources on people who are selling and consuming a harmless plant. I hate the mayor but the one thing I'll give her credit for is that it is abundantly clear that MPD will not waste its time and resources busting cannabis sellers and users because a bunch of uptight old biddies on DCUM have their feefees hurt.

Nobody said you had to like it....

They will if the right people and businesses complain enough. And it’s not harmless - they are illegal cash businessed that attract crime and a bad element.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I have had issues in multiple apartment buildings and a subsequent house I rented by neighbors who smoke constantly. I'm trying to raise my kids in the city and we have had chronic issues (pun intended) with this crap coming into our homes... even in "nice" neighborhoods. I also constantly smell strong pot smoke coming from cars and I'm trying to keep myself and my family alive as we walk, bus, bike, or drive through the city. The destigmatization of pot is awful. The "health benefits" are a joke aside from those undergoing chemotherapy.

Sounds like Alabama or some other predatory carceral back water hell hole is your type of place.

You know, if "carceral" means only law-abiding people are free to walk around, that sounds pretty good to this central city dweller. Our cities don't have to suck. Crime isn't a badge of honor and criminals made their choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I have had issues in multiple apartment buildings and a subsequent house I rented by neighbors who smoke constantly. I'm trying to raise my kids in the city and we have had chronic issues (pun intended) with this crap coming into our homes... even in "nice" neighborhoods. I also constantly smell strong pot smoke coming from cars and I'm trying to keep myself and my family alive as we walk, bus, bike, or drive through the city. The destigmatization of pot is awful. The "health benefits" are a joke aside from those undergoing chemotherapy.

Sounds like Alabama or some other predatory carceral back water hell hole is your type of place.