SF needs "no-greed" pot clubs

*WILL SF REGULATE POT CLUBS?

[ http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/25/WBGJ0BETJ41.DTL ]

[ http://www.sfexaminer.com/news/ ]

............

SF SHOULD ADOPT "NO-GREED" PRINCIPLE
in retailing of cannabis


An open letter to Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi:
[ ross.mirkarimi [at] sfgov.org ]

THANK YOU for taking on the problem of regulatig and taxing SF pot clubs*.
By pro-actively approaching this from a progressive and humane perspective,
you may prevent an Oakland-style repression.

Please issue licenses ONLY to non-profits, consumer co-ops, and city agencies --
but NOT to any profit-seekers, whether individual or corporate.

By setting this "no greed" precedent in the medical marijuana trade, SF may be able to establish a model for the day when non-medical cannabis becomes legal. All lawful retail sales of cannabis, present and future, should be NON-commercial.

California's alcohol history shows why commercialism must be prevented.
Under the federal repeal amendment, states can do anything they please about alcoholic beverages -- prohibit, set up a state monopoly, try to regulate a capitalist industry, whatever.

California chose heavily-regulated capitalism as its alcohol system. This forced the liquor industry to master the art of influencing politicians and bureaucrats, thus becoming a powerful force in state and local government, thus reducing the power of mere citizens.

California's alcohol system gives huge profits and power to profit-seekers who sell a DANGEROUS drug. They use their profits to influence decision-makers, and to glamorize drinking --
NOT to provide treatment or harm reduction to alcohol's many victims;
and NOT to inform teens that heavy alcohol use is as stupid as smoking tobacco.

The alcohol industry has bought -- not earned -- an aura of respectability.
Hence many citizens mistakenly believe that legal alcohol is less harmful than illegal cannabis.

In my negative remarks about alcohol, I'm not advocating liquor prohibition. That was over-kill, which caused its own backlash (and, in SF, outright defiance). "Tee-total" prohibition drives harmful addictions into the underworld, where victims get no help, and where they get exploited by professional law-breakers. By "harmful" addictions, I mean compulsive over-use of alcohol, opiates, nicotine, gambling, etc.; as contrasted with our harmless addiction to caffeine. [ I'm NOT claiming that cannabis is harmless; merely that it's less harmful than alcohol. ]

California chose the wrong way to re-legalize alcohol. We SHOULD have restricted sales of bottled hard liquor (20% alcohol or more) to non-profits and state agencies. If we can learn from our mistakes, we'll apply this no-greed standard to cannabis.

For harm reduction,

Tortuga Bi LIBERTY
San Francisco
25 Feb. 2005
............