News

Editorial: Irrationality on marijuana

We voted overwhelmingly to legalize it, but ambivalent city officials still push back

In a community in which two-thirds of voters a year ago supported Proposition 64, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, city officials are recommending a policy that prohibits even a single highly regulated retail dispensary from operating here.

The city has had a year to determine its approach to implementing the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, but like most cities it has delayed so long as to make it almost impossible to now craft zoning changes to accommodate retail cannabis sales before the state begins issuing permits of its own on Jan. 1. So in order to block the state from doing so, the city staff is recommending an ordinance prohibiting any local dispensaries, at least through next year.

Here is the essence of the recommended policy that the City Council will consider at its Oct. 30 meeting: Adult residents may grow up to six marijuana plants in their backyard (as long as the plants cannot be seen from the street and are behind a locked gate) and, as provided in state law, they may use it (smoke, eat or apply cannabis lotions) only in their home.

The only way Palo Altans will be able to purchase cannabis products, however, will be to order them and have them delivered to their home by a state-licensed delivery service or drive to Mountain View, the one Peninsula city thus far actually trying to implement the intent of Prop. 64 by allowing retail locations.

Prop. 64 gave cities the opportunity to ban or enact restrictions on outdoor cultivation, delivery services and commercial outlets, but they cannot prohibit growing up to six plants indoors or the consumption of cannabis in homes. (Until Jan. 1, it's legal to use marijuana in your own home, but you can only buy it legally with a medical marijuana card.)

No one has been able to articulate why, other than uncertainties about state regulations that will be issued within the next month, the city should not license one or more retail establishment to sell cannabis or products containing cannabis.

Mayor Greg Scharff, who acknowledges his personal views have evolved since he strongly opposed a local measure in 2012 that would have allowed up to three licensed medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, says Palo Altans should just plan on driving to Mountain View if they want to buy cannabis.

His view reflects a widespread hesitation by cities to adjust zoning laws to permit a limited number of retail establishments.

"Ban now and wait-and-see what happens" is the approach being urged by city attorneys and city managers across the state.

The approach originally recommended by the Palo Alto city attorney was to also ban residents from growing up to six outdoor plants, and we are pleased to see the change to allow this, given the impossibility of enforcement and the fact that many residents are already growing plants.

But for a community with a large baby boomer population who came of age partaking in then-illegal marijuana use and where teenagers can today obtain it more easily than their parents, we hope Palo Alto council members will respect the will of the voters and issue a small number of permits for retail locations in existing commercial districts within the city.

The days of arguing that such establishments might attract crime or undesirable elements, which we bought into five years ago when the medical marijuana dispensary issue was on the ballot, are over. Such problems have not materialized in California, and under the law cities can exercise substantial control over the number and operations of retail outlets, as well as charge a revenue-generating sales tax. Prop. 64 contains many safeguards and requirements for retail dispensaries, including secure storage requirements and placement away from schools, and cities can add more if they wish. Retail stores in Oregon and Colorado, where recreational use has been legalized, operate without problems.

Although there are many who now receive cannabis deliveries using an easily obtainable medical marijuana card, many more who would like to try lotions or edibles for therapeutic purposes have been discouraged by what seems like an illegitimate and abused medical marijuana system. Prop. 64 was intended to normalize cannabis as a product far less risky than many other forms of treatment or relaxation, and city governments should be facilitating that change, not resisting it.

We urge the City Council to enact a short-term, three-month ban on retail cannabis establishments to give the city staff enough time to return before the end of the year with the necessary zoning changes and restrictions to allow the permitting of up to three commercial dispensaries in Palo Alto.

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Comments

19 people like this
Posted by Weed Miles Traveled
a resident of another community
on Oct 20, 2017 at 8:47 am

Also, wouldn't a dispensary ban increase traffic in Palo Alto? (delivery cars, residents driving to other cities...).


37 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 20, 2017 at 8:54 am

I agree. Council members are turning their backs on tax revenue for our city if they let MV or other towns pluck what should be PAs golden goose. That's irresponsible.

And while they are at it, get off the current restriction on growing MJ outside (out of view). It's crazy to require that electricity be wasted to grow indoors what sun can do outside. Growing indoors was only done when it was illegal and now when it can't be outside and out of sight. Duh. What are we - Puritans at the Plymouth Colony or leaders in Silicon Valley in the 21st century?


38 people like this
Posted by Dan
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 20, 2017 at 9:48 am

There is nothing irrational about not wanting to encourage drug use locally in the city. I know potheads are chomping at the bit to be able to buy their daily fix at the corner store just like cigarettes, but doesn't mean it is a good thing for the city. This is a source of tax revenue that we should willingly forego.


32 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 20, 2017 at 10:00 am

Online Name is a registered user.

Thank you, Weekly, for pointing out the hypocrisy of ignoring the will of 2/3rds of Palo Alto voters.

I guess Dan above missed all the business and society page coverage of some of the leading purveyors of marijuana edibles like the society ladies in the garden party hats and tea dresses enjoying the varieties of marijuana teas? They're hardly the skulkers you describe but pillars of the San Francsco community.

As for the tax revenues Dan advocates forgoing, maybe he'll pay 2/3rds more?


27 people like this
Posted by James Thurber
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2017 at 10:47 am

My honest opinion? Who cares.

Marijuana possession has been a low-level misdemeanor for so long that pursuing it is a waste of time. For heavens sake, let people do what they wish and quit trying to legislate everything.


21 people like this
Posted by jim h
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 20, 2017 at 11:11 am

How ridiculous that marijuana is now legalized by a 2/3 vote right here in Palo Alto and the City is dragging their feet. The era of "Reefer Madness" and the many good people locked up by these authoritarians is thankfully coming to an end.

Pot is good, it will now be legal and we should finally embrace it. And now Palo Alto can reap the benefits of taxes that would have gone to drug dealers.


36 people like this
Posted by Aletheia
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 20, 2017 at 12:21 pm

Aletheia is a registered user.

I think Palo Alto is first and foremost a family-oriented city. Therefore, the vast majority of parents here don't want dispensaries in town. I don't think it's a stretch to say voting for something and having it implemented down the street are two different things (I personally voted NO on Prop 64 so no hypocrisy here). I voted no because I believe pot is a dangerous drug. I've seen too many youths drained of any motivation through over-use of the stuff. I also believe it is a gateway drug. I don't know a single parent who condones the use of pot by their kids.


10 people like this
Posted by Joel
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 20, 2017 at 1:15 pm

Hear! Hear! Here!! Thanks for the editorial.


28 people like this
Posted by Louise68
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 20, 2017 at 1:41 pm

@ jim h and those who agree with him:
"pot is good". Really? Are you serious?

OK --- and this is for everyone who thinks that pot is good:
Please answer "Yes" or "No" to the following questions:

1. Would you want all your surgeons to be under the influence of pot while operating on you?

2. Would you want the pilots of all planes you fly on to be under the influence of pot while flying the planes you were on?

3.. Would you want all Air Traffic Controllers controlling all flights you were on to be under the influence of pot while acting as Air Traffic Controllers?


If any of you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, please tell me why. And if you answered "No" to any of these questions, please tell me why.

Thanks!

BTW -- refusing to answer my questions means you are admitting that you are wrong in believing "pot is good". It is not. A society in which many of its members are under the influence of mind-altering drugs is one that is doomed to destroy most of its people.


15 people like this
Posted by Joel
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 20, 2017 at 2:23 pm

Louise68
You seem to be begging the question!
Marijuana has been very helpful to me after my Prostate Cancer treatments side effects and my Glaucoma pressure.


11 people like this
Posted by Polly Wanacracker
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 20, 2017 at 3:11 pm

"How ridiculous that marijuana is now legalized by a 2/3 vote right here in Palo Alto and the City is dragging their feet."

It makes me wonder what they're smoking.


22 people like this
Posted by Dr. Monopoly
a resident of another community
on Oct 20, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Louise68

There is a time and a place for most good things.

Going out for a jog is good but not in a dangerous neighborhood at 11pm.

It's good to help people if they are struggling carrying something out to their car. You probably shouldn't do it if it looks like they are robbing the place though.

Painkillers are good, they stop debilitating pain, but they shouldn't be taken while doing surgery.

As a programmer, marijuana is amazingly good, it helps you spread your focus when looking at large code bases. It also makes you go less crazy from sitting and typing for several hours every day. But I wouldn't want someone whose never partaken before to consume a large amount, they wouldn't enjoy themselves. And I wouldn't recommend people doing anything involving safety to be impaired on anything. And if you don't believe me, the federal government has been trying to loosen marijuana requirements on programmers because it is so ubiquitous in the talented parts of the community.

So the answer is no to all of your question and that has nothing to do with marijuana out of context. In most situations it's good but we must always use common sense.

This kind of questioning belies prohibitionists one track mind. Good is almost always relative to context.


26 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 20, 2017 at 5:32 pm

Louise68, by your logic we should also ban all alcohol because we wouldn't want our surgeons operating under the influence of alcohol either. The same applies to pilots and air traffic controllers.

You might be interested to know that a totally dry town in Alabama that bars all alcohol has allowed medical marijuana because it's the only thing that helps the mayor's young daughter.

Queen Victoria used marijuana to ease her menstrual cramps more than 100 years ago. The nationally acclaimed oncologists at Anderson in Houston recommended marijuana to shrink tumors and to retard their growth for 2 adult friends, one from Houston and one from here who commuted regularly to Anderson. Both friends were fathers loved by their spouses, kids and friends so please save your claims that parents wouldn't approve of or use marijuana.

I personally have a medical marijuana card and the topical cream I use for my eczema has saved me a few hundred dollars over my prescription cream.

The states that have legalized marijuana for medical and/or recreational use have all seen their opiod crises decline because -- surprise -- marijuana eases pain without the horrible consequences of Oxycodone in terms of health issues and crime.

All of the examples above apply to people with families and it's illogical and arrogant to claim that no one with families approve of or use marijuana.

Finally, much of the computer industry, esp. Apple, fueled itself on marijuana so maybe you'd also like to ban Apple and other companies where marijuana has been used? The hypocrisy is stunning.


9 people like this
Posted by Juan
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2017 at 7:32 pm

2/3rds of voters voted for legalization, not the availability of marijuana at every street corner and every front yard garden. If you want to use drugs then do it in your own house, away from the public, away from kids. That's a reasonable compromise, if you don't like it then you should leave the city.


16 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 20, 2017 at 7:51 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

Who's talking about availability on every street corner and/or in every front yard garden or wasting our supplies on kids passing by our homes??

Why the silly exaggerations? No one would be stupid enough to grow it in their front yards!

2/3rds of us voted for legalization within PA and not near schools as already stipulated in the laws. I think it would be great to have a friendly ADULT-ONLY place to go to indulge, listen to music and maybe play Scrabble like they have in SF, SC, Portland, Las Vegas, Amsterdam, etc. etc.


2 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 20, 2017 at 8:15 pm

If this is being pushed as a medical product than SU should have some in their dispensary - that would respond to the "medical marijuana" argument. Or they could have a outpost at Jasper Ridge so people could zone out. They could look at Searsville Lake, have lunch, and admire the view. Just trying to be helpful here.


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 21, 2017 at 1:28 pm

When it comes to pot every opinion is based on age - generation; where you grew up; family circumstances - religious or non-religious, etc. Everyone has seen the worst there is here including the Hollywood movies of gangsters and bad acting. And if you look at Hollywood today you are looking at the worst here is. Please do now expect cities to overcome the historic bad publicity related to pot. No one wants to see what they have seen before. And no other person can argue that.


8 people like this
Posted by Mercy
a resident of Duveneck School
on Oct 23, 2017 at 12:01 pm

There's an excellent article in Town Square, written about the need for ALL of us to advocate, for the homeless. If you haven't read it yet, I suggest that you do so.

The cultivation and distribution of cannabis, approved by 2/3 of Palo Alto residents would provide funds for beds, showers, counseling, and most importantly addresses so that the homeless can turn their lives around.

Question: which of the city council members was elected by 2/3rds of the voters? None.

Follow the will of the people.


14 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 23, 2017 at 12:07 pm

And maybe also use the funds for our huge pension obligations rather than cutting services and raising fees?

Yes, follow the will of the people.


17 people like this
Posted by Nikki
a resident of another community
on Oct 23, 2017 at 1:13 pm

I'm a parent and if my kids needed it for medical use I would totally condone it and I would hope I would not have to drive to San Jose to get it, as we did for my mom. And I would much rather see them smoke pot than drink alcohol or take prescription opiods. What closed-minded assumptions we have here.


4 people like this
Posted by Michael O.
a resident of Stanford
on Oct 23, 2017 at 6:35 pm

Perfectly fine to make people go somewhere else for their weed. Cry me a river.


3 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 24, 2017 at 1:53 am

You are are delusional if you think that PA is going to see any tax revenue from pot. It will be an excise tax paid into a state agency. Please stop trying to hype some great windfall of money here - it is not going to happen. There may be value at the state level.


6 people like this
Posted by Sunny
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 24, 2017 at 9:26 am

I don't understand why marijuana can't be taken in pill form instead of being smoked. The smoke is so rancid and always noticeable - it smells like a skunk. I also worry about the 2nd hand marijuana smoke that must affect non-smokers. Back in the 70s when I was a kid, my next-door neighbor smoked a lot of it. It wafted over to my house and made me sick.


8 people like this
Posted by Nicole
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2017 at 9:42 am

@sunny - it's simply much more effective, quicker to work and you have much more control over how much you take by smoking. And of course because it's been a schedule 1 drug (or whatever the proper term is) due to mostly racist policies we have not been able to do much in the way of medical studies to make a better form. There was a pill prescribed to my grandma eons ago and even her doctor recommended she smoke it instead (this was for cancer/chemo side-effects). Now with just a few more studies they are creating medical versions of oil which don't even have the high effect, but that took a lot of resistance by several people with very sick kids first.


8 people like this
Posted by Sunny
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 24, 2017 at 10:04 am

That is my point about 2nd hand marijuana smoke... if it is medicinal why should I have to inhale it if my next door neighbor or the person walking in front of me is smoking it. I don't want to have to inhale someone else's medicine. And it stinks too!


11 people like this
Posted by Why Why Why?
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 24, 2017 at 10:46 am

Why should I have to breathe someone's car exhaust. Why should I have to smell someone's perfume. Why should I have to smell coffee roasting if it makes me nauseous? Why should I have to deal with someone doing something legally if I'm put off in any way?

The answer is wonderfully simple: Because you are a member of a society has said it's OK for others to do all these things, even if some find a reason to be offended. Are you opposed to edibles? There's always a solution.


4 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 24, 2017 at 12:06 pm

Any tax from Pot will be an excise tax paid into a state agency which will use the taxes to offset the cost of managing this program at the state level. And if there is any windfall you can bet that your great friend Gov. Brown will use that to help pay for HSR or some other scheme. The biggest problem we have right now is that incoming money to the state gets shoveled into the General Fund and them re-appropriated to some program that is already been in process and losing money. And we keep voting for this nonsense.


8 people like this
Posted by Pharmacies are for drug distribution
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 24, 2017 at 12:09 pm

Pharmacies are for drug distribution is a registered user.

I voted no against marijuana dispensaries (rather these are boutiques designed to market marijuana as cool and fashionable). THAT kind of sophisticated marketing is what the marijuana industry wants to maximize their profits and THAT would be bad for the community (especially kids) because it is too uncontrolled.

We have a perfectly good system for legitimate drug dispensary. It is called a pharmacy. It works. Let's use it.


6 people like this
Posted by Dan
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 24, 2017 at 12:57 pm

true story. I had a tenant call saying that a skunk had taken up residence in the downstairs garage area. Called a rodent specialist but he didn't find evidence of the skunk and there was no smell present when he visited the house. Tenant kept e-mailing saying the skunk smell was very strong in the downstairs bathroom, could I take a look into it. I went over and found some evidence of burrowing under the back deck, but no skunk smell, so i was going to open up the walls to see if there was a skunk making a home under the raised floor. I was really not looking forward to this task, and then the tenant called and said they had noticed the neighbor out back smoking... the "skunk" was just pot smell all along. Yes, it really does stink. The pot-smoking neighbor eventually moved out and the "skunk" problem was solved.
Voting to decriminalize something is not the same as voting to endorse it.


6 people like this
Posted by Sure glad it's legal
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 24, 2017 at 2:14 pm

I'm glad the grown-ups will have the law behind them when they light up, eat, grow or use creams or suppositories(look it up. It really helps women's discomforts during their cycle). Onward and forward, the war is over on this one, thankfully!


14 people like this
Posted by Stanford Med
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 24, 2017 at 5:01 pm

As usual, the validity and correctness of the comments are coming from people making calm, non-exaggerated points, utilizing examples that have factually occurred instead of trying to scare you about some boogie man that will come and steal your kids in the future.
2/3rds of the voter in Palo Alto disregarded the apocalyptic claims of those who would rather it be a crime. Good town that Palo Alto...many extremely intelligent people who are skilled at critical thinking live here.
Seriously, it's been very freely available for more than 20 years. The claims of doom and gloom have been proven false by time. The glad news is, everyone can relax. Remember, it's been avail to anyone who wants it for over 20 years...no doom, no gloom.


Like this comment
Posted by cvvhrn
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 25, 2017 at 12:13 pm

cvvhrn is a registered user.

So, how many people have legitimate prescriptions for medical pot? That really what we should be asking about. Does Palo Alto have a need for ITS citizens to be served by this? Is it a hardship for those in need to drive to Menlo park or Mountain View etc?

Next year we will see retail stores popping up all over the place and the number of dispensaries will in all likelihood go down accordingly as people who do not have legit pain control needs can now go elsewhere. Given this the "tax" benefits of adding a dispensary is going to be minimal anyway.


10 people like this
Posted by @cvvhrn
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm

Unless they are forged, all are legitimate under CA law. Just as all prescriptions are legitimate. Now if you're asking how many prescriptions are unneeded in the US, that's an entirely different issue. God knows how over-prescribed we are with damaging chemicals from the pharma companies. We only need to look at the opioid tragedies to see this problem.

The law going into affect Jan 1 will not take into account medical needs. It makes it legal to use for any reason you want...sort of like coffee or alcohol. Just be glad it's no where near as dangerous or negative to society as alcohol. If some can get off booze or opioids by using cannabis, I wholeheartedly support that.

Interesting related story, for the first time ever, a majority of republican respondents stated they were in favor of legalizing cannabis. You simply cannot beat down truth with "what I want to be true", and that is slowly being seen by all.


9 people like this
Posted by Shocked&Disheartened
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 25, 2017 at 5:30 pm

I assume the 2/3 vote in favor of recreational cannabis outlets implies that the majority of individuals who live in my community are intellectuals and progressives but witnessing the blatantly uneducated in our city spewing falsities and unfounded refer madness rhetoric is quite concerning when only 10 minutes of research on Google is required to eradicate the foundations of their positions.

1. According to Harvard prescription drugs kill over 400,000 Americans every year..second only to tobacco products. While in the past several millenniums of cannabis usage there has never been a documented case of an overdose from this plant which led to a fatality.

2. After the enactment of medical cannabis laws within a state, youth usage declined significantly across the board. In every state, in every category. States without medical cannabis laws?...many incurred a complete contrast and had significant increases instead.

3. Violent crime in all medical cannabis states plummeted after passing medical cannabis laws. Prior to the early release program, in 2010, California was at a 40 year low in violent crime. Unprecedented.

4. According to the CDC, 300,000 Americans die each year from the side-effects of sugar...and we don't even apply a sin-tax on candy bars.

5. Alcohol is easily accessible throughout our city and it is guilty of killing roughly 100,000 Americans annually...not to mention 80 percent of domestic violence stems from the consumption of alcohol.

6. Statistically speaking, strawberries, peanuts, chicken, fish, milk, eggs, hot dogs and many other grocery store items are significantly more lethal than cannabis. People have been known to die from an over consumption of water, but never due to an over consumption of cannabis. Has anyone suggested a ban on any one of those products? Hypocrisy.

7. Since the prohibition of cannabis in the early 1900's cancer rates have skyrocketed. In 1900, 6 percent of the population (ages 0-50) were expected to be attacked by cancer...in 2017, the rate has jumped to 25 percent (ages 0-50). Could this possibly be due to starving one of the largest systems within the human body, the Endocannabinoid System?!?....

While 20 power points would easily be conceivable when discussing the science and history of cannabis and the comparability between this amazing plant and common store bought (fatal) foods, I will not continue to overwhelm the readers with statistics, facts and postulations.

I only ask of our community to end this racist prohibition that flies in the face of irrefutable science, history and philosophy. Evolution fundamentally requires change. Hate stems from fear, love is the answer. What would Jesus or Buddha do?

Peace be with you all.


7 people like this
Posted by jim h
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 26, 2017 at 3:04 pm

@Louise68

Very provocative and pointless little survey. Learn a little about pot. Especially now that it is legal. You better get used to it because it will never again be illegal for the same reason that prohibition was overturned.

And no one said Palo Alto should be teeming with pot shops. We're saying give one a try. It could be closed down and no more allowed if someone can demonstrate any significant problem issues.

@resident
California cities that permit recreational marijuana businesses could increase income from sales taxes.

There also would be opportunities for governments, schools, public safety agencies and nonprofits in cities that welcome the cannabis industry to compete for hundreds of millions a year in grants that will fund substance abuse programs, offset enforcement costs and more.


2 people like this
Posted by George
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 28, 2017 at 10:33 am

California’s move from the voters initial rejection of legalization to a public willing to accept decriminalization has moved much too quickly with users, growers, and the State greedy for gain pushing adoption and advocacy for the ‘new industry’. It’s all a really bad idea. Medical marijuana should be added and controlled as a prescription medication. While it’s very true that the war on drugs has not been effective, this is ONLY true because users support the illegal trade. Users support the trade in it and Opioids, heroin, meth, etc. and don’t really care about larger consequences. Those people, and their suppliers, cause huge problems and expense for communities. This is why the community MUST not endorse or normalize this behavior by accepting use by friends and neighbors or accepting those who grow or trade in it as anything but the enemies within that they are. Despite their claims that it is benign, it’s a serious problem. Palo Alto should not be an enabler by supporting this in any way.


2 people like this
Posted by Martha
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 28, 2017 at 12:20 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Like this comment
Posted by raw smoke shop
a resident of Mayfield
on Oct 28, 2017 at 1:31 pm

I noticed that there's a "Raw Smoke Shop" going up in the Cal Ave shopping district a block away from another smoke shop. Will the new shop be a pot dispensary??


6 people like this
Posted by Oh Dan
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 29, 2017 at 1:32 am

"I know potheads are chomping at the bit to be able to buy their daily fix at the corner store just like cigarettes, but doesn't mean it is a good thing for the city."

Dan, you should understand the subject before you demonize it. You make it sound like junkies are going to be passed out one the sidewalk with needles hanging out of their arms. There's no daily fix. Grow up.


2 people like this
Posted by Alcohol
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 30, 2017 at 9:30 am

There IS a daily fix needed for all the alcoholics in our society so maybe that's why we have so many booze outlets.
"Here, take a sip of this delicious wine, it's fun!. Oh, if you drink too much you absolutely WILL die. No argument about that."

Some people actually encourage their kids to drink now and then. Unbelievable.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,861 views

Post-election reflections -- and sponges
By Diana Diamond | 13 comments | 1,648 views

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,320 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 855 views