On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:26:36 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
>Let is be knownst that on 29 Dec 2006 07:01:34 -0800,
>"ginger-haired-lard-arsed-money-grabbing-bitch"
> writted:
>
>>
>>B Vaughan wrote:
>>> On 29 Dec 2006 05:50:24 -0800,
>>> "ginger-haired-lard-arsed-money-grabbing-bitch"
>>> wrote:
>>> Apparently even in San Francisco, the US capital of weed, these
>>> clinics attract a type of patient found to cause social and aesthetic
>>> problems for the neighbors.
>>>
>>which is strange because people seem to accept pubs; and I have never
>>seen any violent soft drug users on a friday or saturday night.
>
>Apparently people still view weed as a harmful drug, and all use as
>abuse.
Certainly not in San Francisco, where I'm sure a sizeable majority
would favor the total legalization of marijuana. It's been a while
since I read the article, but none of the people who objected to the
clinics in their neighborhoods objected to pot per se, nor did they
mention violence. They also didn't object to marijuana clinics in
general, just to clinics opening in their residential neighborhoods.
I think the objection was to groups of pot heads hanging around
outside the clinics, leaving trash around, maybe peeing on the walls,
maybe petty theft, but definitely to a general bringing down the tone
of the neighborhood. It was quite obvious that most of the patients in
these clinics were not in chemotherapy or suffering from glaucoma
Why do the people in that quaint Dutch village want the coffee shops
moved out of town? I imagine that violence and the inherent evilness
of weed have nothing to do with that, either.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup |