People will just buy it in other cities and Palo Alto will miss out on the taxes.

It amazes me how many of my son's high school friends are growing it in their backyards and their parents are ok with it.

Remind me again why the CC gets to reject the will of the voters who voted to approve marijuana sales by a huge margin.

As Tim said above, buyers will continue to buy it and other cities will reap the tax benefits while the CC will continue to scrounge around to find other ways to impose taxes, fees, surcharges, etc. on us.

In the days of Uber and Booster, banning location based services becomes a joke.

There's so much anxiety and just an intense environment everyone could use a little chilling out. I say welcome the dispensaries. They have a lot of edible options.

Stores selling liquor every few blocks in PA, but oh no, lets not have 1 or 2 marijuana dispensaries in our city.

Why does the title of this article use the word "rush"? Sounds like desperation to me. You have to take this in steps - first - what does the state have on it's books relative to specifications and laws? Then the county and city need to organize their approach. The city has to follow within the given boundaries. Despite what you think we are not the wild west here. There is a lot of discussion on what boundaries need to be in place for this.
And people keep talking about the so-called windfall "taxes" to be gained. Any taxes go to a state department which then has to use the taxes to pay for the people in that new organization assigned to monitor this activity. You are hoping for some windfall but it has not happened in other states or cities. It is another expenditure of time and money by the city, county, and state. And any argument about reducing the fire department needs to be stopped - somehow people who get involved in these activities overuse their electrical capability and start fires. Or they get some great idea to grow in weird places to hide their grows. The bird brain approach usually ends up with bad results.

Another classic example of Palo Alto's entitled nature, and "not in my backyard" mentality. This dynamic plays out on so many levels. Voters in Palo Alto overwhelmingly approve legislation that legalizes recreational use of marijuana. They tout how liberal and progressive they are, and yet disallow dispensaries from opening shop within the city limits. Hypocrisy abound, and how very, very predictable.

To Resident: I disagree with you on taxes. Are you also saying that any taxes generated by selling liquor in our city, goes all to the state for monitoring activity. I think not.
Let the Fire Chief reorganize the fire dept. obviously priorities have changed over recent years to staff more paramedic units because of the type of 911 calls. If he thinks we need less firefighters at certain times, that's his and the council call to decide.

Go forward with the ban! Let those who want to indulge go elsewhere for their buys. Palo Alto doesn't need to reap any benefits from this "tax." We're already a very rich community!!

... they all said, while opening the second bottle of wine.

So glad that EVERYONE has the capability to research a topic. Try the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.The tax generated by a sale is an excise tax paid to the agency on a quarterly basis.

The person who has the store is also paying a lease or rent cost and insurance. Person has to make a profit to stay in business. We do not have cheap rent or lease rates here. A lot of assumptions that are not going to work very well if that is the only product in the store. Doing this type of business in PA is sketchy at best. Other retailers are not doing so well. If anyone can stay in business more than three months based on the cost to stock the store, pay employees, and meet the utility costs will be overwhelming.
My opinion - I see a bunch of 60 year old rock and rollers reliving their youth.

During rush hour, the length of ECR between Stanford and Page Mill is already more fragrant than the beauty section in Bloomingdales. Let's just call it Ode de THC or Channel Number Delta-9.

Advocates will claim it is no worse than alcohol but users obviously compare it more synonymously to drinking coffee.

It is evident from the table in the article that Palo Alto is in excellent company: nearly all Peninsula are wisely choosing to ban pot dispensaries and the unsavory element that comes with them.

Local Medical Dispensaries could put the Smoke and Vape shops in Palo Alto out of business. From what I’ve learned many of them have been selling marijuana for a couple of decades.Palo Alto should take control of it’s destiny and be a leader as it has in other areas of community and city management.

Exploring the Ecological Association Between Crime and Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Consistent with previous work, variables measuring routine activities at the ecological level were related to crime. There were no observed cross-sectional associations between the density of medical marijuana dispensaries and either violent or property crime rates in this study. These results suggest that the density of medical marijuana dispensaries may not be associated with crime rates or that other factors, such as measures dispensaries take to reduce crime (i.e., doormen, video cameras), may increase guardianship such that it deters possible motivated offenders. Web Link

Free Press - no "study" is free - the goal of any study is spelled out prior to the start of the study and the design of any study is to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. Reporter is from "Another Community". As to this community SU is in process of expanding their community and based on the cost of living in this area we are not going to go down the path of realigning our overall community goals to look like a NORCAL pot parlor. We are going to look like a university city.
As to the NORCAL pot growers the SFC is reporting that the whole industry in the NORCAL communities is wiped out due to fire and FEMA, et all do not insure for this product. Many of the wine growers were busy converting to what they thought was the next big product for the state. Unfortunately growers in NORCAL do not typically install all of the universal growing standards as to fire protection, electrical usage and water usage consistent with the overall community in which they reside.

Resident:

Another community? Central America is not a pull down option. So what would you prefer us to use? Are you suggesting this study has other alternative motives to reach in what you have described as “preconceived conclusions”? This renowned Organization has no stake or shareholder interests in the Marijuana industry and is completely unbiased...

I don't get the point you are trying to make here. I am talking about Palo Alto and where we are going with the economy. Your comment about Central America - what is the point other than it is the growing location alternative for illegal transport of drugs. The NORCAL growers are supposedly the "legal" growers - they hope. As to PA and the locations suggested above on ECR you are on notice that area is going through a major transition for transportation and apartments. We are in an "upgrade" mode to tear down existing older one-story buildings and replace with new multi-level buildings. And the rent will not be cheap. Look a the rest of ECR in MV and MP and it is happening now.

Have any of those critical of their CC for their stance paid much attention to the problems resulting in other states as a result of this legalization? It has been detrimental to the quality of life for many, many people.

And it's been positive for many, many more people and the coffers of many states and cities. Think how much money the federal govt. could save fighting the Mexican cartels. Think how much safer Mexican tourism would be without the cartels.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, either.

Either way, the citizens of Palo Alto and California VOTED to make it available by a wide margin. Research how many branch libraries and police officers has San Jose, for example, has funded with its revenues from medical marijuana alone and think about it the next time PA pleads poverty.

Please, please, please; when will all this idiocy end. The naysayers are just like the idiots that supported Prohibition. The drug war is lost. Marijuana is good, it helps medically, brings in revenue, and lets people have fun without the use of alcohol. I am positive that opioid use would decline if dope was legalized by the Feds because it works great for pain. Legalize, let it's use be under the same as alcohol. It is the only rational answer, period. Just do it, it is what we want and what we voted to have. Stop the insanity now.

People keep referring to the supposed income from taxes on pot sales. It will be an excise tax paid to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. So get your facts on the table as to how that tax gets back to the city at the top level. In Colorado they have stated that the cost of managing this whole show is in excess of any income derived from it. What is does is fund an agency and employ people to supervise people and the whole show. That costs money - and eventually pension costs. Let's hire more people to manage people - sorry same old story dressed up on a new package. So that is the challenge - tell us how that excise tax gets fed back to the city. What really happens here is that the developer who owns the building gets a new tenant for the building - so the developer prospers with no risk on his part except for the inhabitants that will probably burn the building down as usually happens now with the heavy electrical usage by this group.

Re supposed income from taxes on pot sales, here you go for Colorado, the first state to legalize:

Web Link

Sales tax revenue of around $500,000,000 on sales of $1,300,000,000 (billion)

So what do you know about income statements and balance sheets? Sales and Revenue are in the income category. You forgot the expenses and liabilities. There needs to be bottom line net revenue/loss.

Resident, feel free to repeat the search "Colorado Marijuana pot tax revenue" and you'll see that none of the major news articles from CNN, CNBC, US News & World Report etc. etc. mention the dire consequences and liabilities you mention.

In fact, today's Washington Post had an analysis about how legal marijuana reduces opioid deaths significantly, thus reducing the dire consequences and costs of that problem, too.

Rush? Hardly. Palo Alto is so far behind on this it's silly. Palo Alto is so wealthy we don't need the tax revenue? Seriously? Is that why our budget is blown for schools and we can't pay our pension debt? Wake up and smell the cat food.
Set up the usual restrictions on location and square footage and get on with life. Resistance is futile. The people have spoken.

The users miss the point. People don't object to legalizing Marijuana because it is no worse than alcohol, they object because it is just as bad.

If it causes even a tiny fraction of the destruction in lives, families and communities as alcohol and tobacco have throughout history then it should be nothing to celebrate.

Ever been to the Rose n' Crown downtown? The outside seating area is full of disgusting cigarette smokers and ruins it (for people who don't like rat poison). The day I can spark up a doobie there... that'll be the day.

Funny how origin of Palo Alto was enshrined with the Leland Stanford's Prohibition of alcohol within the city limits and old Whiskey Gulch was the place to go. High School kids used to park their cars in a circle, turn on the radio's, dring and dance in front of Leland Jr's tomb. Now alcohol abounds yet Palo Alto still tries to ban the legal growing of marijuana, dispensaries etc. First time tragedy, now a farce. Get your license, get some clones, get an Earthbox from Summer Winds and go to town!

Anyone who is anti-marijuana is what is wrong with this country. It's a plant and a medicine. We should be ultra progressive on this subject and fully embrace it and encourage Stanford to conduct as much research as possible on the plant. Shame on all of you spouting negative rhetoric on marijuana.

Yes - times do change. Take Al Gore - his family fortune in Tennessee is based on the tobacco industry and of course the slaves that helped that dynasty produce product. Of course no comment from him on the destruction to the environment since tobacco was big business back then. It is also big business now as Carlos Slim - one of richest men in world and resident of Mexico has tobacco (?) farms throughout our southern neighbor countries. Let's all agree that there is big money here, especially with the former President of Mexico - Fox - popping around at SU and the Commonwealth Club espousing the financial benefits of this activity and his palling around with Gov. Brown and calling Trump crazy since Trump does not embrace this topic. So big time political clout exercising their product knowledge in every way possible.
So how has that helped our Southern Neighbors (?). We keep talking about immigration in the middle of the subject - like when people appear at our border. We do not talk about the origin of the problem - where the people come from and what they are running away from. Not good. If we start the immigration problem at it's source and talk about how these countries are going wrong then we can change the focus of many topics. Many of these problems need to be managed at the source where corruption is endemic to the whole of society. And this product is the basis of much which is going wrong.

It this is truly medicine then it should be imbibed in the same way as other medicines.

My big problem though is that we are doing our best to stamp out smoking for health reasons, for second hand smoke reasons, for the fact that it is an unpleasant and antisocial habit. Now it seems that the rules are all going to be turned upside down for something which may or may not be beneficial to a small segment of society and the rest of us have to allow them their drug.

How can this be progress? How can we suffer the smell of pot and pretend it is OK? I like to breath clean air, not polluted air.

I think the commenter meant that Marijuana is a plant and a CARCINOGEN. According to the Mayo Clinic, it has adverse affects on the following:

Brain
Heart
Lungs
Liver
Eyes
Stomach
Ears
Blood pressure
Blood sugar levels
People taking female hormones
People with immune disorders
Those who suffer from seizures
Have learning disorders
musculoskeletal or connective tissue disorders
Children, pregnant or breast feeding women
People operating vehicles

Other than that it is good for you.

Web Link

A direct quote from the Mayo Clinic link your posted:

"Cannabinoids are likely safe when used for specific conditions at the recommended doses for the recommended amount of time."

Thanks for the info.
They also list side possible effects like every other drug ever sold in the past 2 or 3 decades. I would imagine a multitude of these would be reduced depending on the form of ingestion or application, so it could be tailored to the individual to avoid these possible side effects.

You only listed the _possible_ side effects interestingly from the link, Mayo does not instruct people NOT to use, rather they encourage cautious use. You totally ignored the summary from the Mayo Clinic: "Cannabinoids are likely safe when used for specific conditions at the recommended doses for the recommended amount of time."

I would suggest recreational use starting in teenage years and continuing through adulthood and old age would fit the former and not the latter.

Yes, I agree teens should not use cannabis just as they should not use alcohol. You never mentioned that once in your original misleading post. It was as if you intentionally ignored the main point about the general safety of cannabis in order to craft a post more in line with your thinking on the issue, even when the actual example you cited states otherwise.

@Sanctimonious

Not at all. Apparently you missed the earlier post and the original point. Thank you for illustrating it so perfectly.

"The users miss the point. People don't object to legalizing Marijuana because it is no worse than alcohol, they object because it is just as bad.

If it causes even a tiny fraction of the destruction in lives, families and communities as alcohol and tobacco have throughout history then it should be nothing to celebrate."

Wherever Alcohol and tobacco have worked their way into the culture, they have been a scourge on society. Together, they are responsible for literally millions of shortened lives and unnecessary deaths. Is that the proud standard you wish to compare to?

I would argue that the same has already been proven true for marijuana unless you consider the disastrous sixties hippy culture or the impoverished inner cities resounding successes.

I actually support legalization for consenting adults but object to misrepresenting pot as mild and harmless. If you think Marijuana is some kind of miracle drug and does not have deleterious effects after long term use then maybe you have been smoking something.

You disagree with me but I cannot find the statement about the general safety of cannabis as stated by Mayo in any part of your post that I replied to. Can you copy it from that post and paste it here?

Sure,

How about this one from the National Institute of Health (NIH).

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hasn’t found that marijuana is safe or effective for treating any health problems. However, some states and the District of Columbia allow its use for certain health purposes. States have legalized medical marijuana because of decisions made by voters or legislators—not because of scientific evidence of its benefits and risks."

Mayo Clinic, NIH, FDA. Sorry, three strikes and you are out.

No, I'd rather not change the subject. Taking us back on track, I said you left out the statement about the relative safety made by the Mayo clinic, you disagreed, I asked you to paste it, you could not so tried to change the subject.
That's enough for me. Enjoy.

Ok, Ok, you got me.

There is obviously no way to pull the HEMP over your eyes.

The Mayo Clinic does in fact say that herbs are not regulated substances but "Cannibinoids are likely safe when used for SPECIFIC CONDITIONS at the RECOMMENDED DOSES for the RECOMMENDED AMOUNT OF TIME."

Not to get into the WEEDs, but that was not my dispute and occasional use for a prescribed malady is far different than prolonged recreational use as a lifestyle choice.

To imply that using Marijuana regularly is not as damaging as smoking or drinking is a little like the POT refusing to call the kettle black.

If someone tells you otherwise, they are selling you a bill of GANJA.

Funny -- you *would* think that a marijuana user would be a far more mellow sort of person.

But I guess that isn't always the case, is it now?

You all can read about the financial fall-out in the pot industry due to the fires in the SJM 10.19.17. Unfortunately the Mayo Clinic does not involve itself with the "business" of pot which is a requirement to get it from the field to your table. At this rate it is not going to make it. Not does it involve itself with the problem of smoke damaged pot that made it through the fire or the new problem of a type of mite that thrives on pot. Nor does it involve itself with the 60's retread generation that probably does not read the Mayo Clinic newsletter or the agricultural issues of delivering clean pot free of mites and other chemical attachments to the leaves.
The marketing of pot requires a special retread 60's approach as a selling tool. How totally unappealing. Have you noticed that the location of these fires both north and south are in the pot growing areas where the "growers" are busy redirecting local water sources and abusing the electrical capability of their growing areas. There was even a pot growing location on the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space Preserve that recently was taken out. We do not donate money to organizations that have pot farms that are illegal to the location. And we have to wonder about the open space properties in the immediate area. Get those helicopters up and going to check out where illegal sites are and take them out. They are a fire hazard.

"The marketing of pot requires..."

In my experience, marijuana hasn't really required a lot of marketing.

If anyone is going to go into a actual legal business selling pot then they are going to be required to function as a business and submit a tax return. Once this is legalized than all of the taxes will go to the Excise tax department. And people will be required to make a profit to stay in business. This has been moved to a whole different plane than the previous under the table operation. Congratulations - so many have worked for this outcome and now those people will have to live with the consequences. Be careful what you wish for. It is like what prohibition was with alcohol then with the regulations that followed with removal of prohibition. So you now have a store - have to make profit to pay for the rent, insurance, employees, pay taxes, etc. WOOHOO! And of course dress the part.

Worst conversation about weed I've ever read. Neither of you should ever talk about dope ever again.

Watch this show, it's phenomenal:

Web Link

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