The real tragedy is that the perfect location for a dispensary, 420 Castro Street, already has Sweetgreen as its occupant.

Yes, we need more potheads in our city.

Correction, Talking Cat: 420 Castro is Peet's (Sweetgreen's space created a new address, 440).

So (as I mentioned here before on the same point: Web Link ), at least 420 Castro can still be said to dispense psychoactive substances. Ones, actually, medically very powerful (unlike cannabinoids, people die regularly from caffeine overdosing, including teenagers using caffeine "energy" drinks), but they have always been legal in this culture

Bravo.
Also, if replace the Monte Carlo club with a cannabis shop, I bet crime downtown drops sharply. Haha.

I have no idea why this whole "distance from teh childruns" thing is even a thing when you can stumble into any California Target and buy a shopping cart full of vodka. Give me a "pothead" over a drunk any day of the week.

So, they support zoning that would allow pot shops to open up in large retail centers, shopping plazas and downtown"? Sorry. I'd put them in the most isolated industrial districts in MV to make them "out of sight & out of mind" and also deliberately difficult to run across without specific intent. And who, by the way, is going to pass and enforce "2nd hand pot smoke" rules (I'd call them "contact high rules") so that only the stoners get stoned? That's a real can of worms for public places and shared housing.

Let me put it this way, and excuse me if I am a little salty.

My ex has an autoimmune; the treatment is rounds of chemotherapy. This kind of illness is not something you "fight" or "beat" if only you think positive and something-something diet-meditation wah-wah. Naw man, this is an exhausting, heaving, wretching, puking, shitting, 3am nightmare. There is no virtue in toughing it out. Medical cannabis was a godsend, even if it was hellaciously expensive.

Then San Jose passed Measure C, relegating storefronts to basically one tiny, shitty, not-terribly-safe, light industrial area of the city. Sometimes, having to leave the house to get cannabis was the one thing my partner could do that day. Why do we in Mt View want to make this harder, or out of sight like it's something to be ashamed of.

Yes I'm talking about medical here, but so what if some people just want to kick back and get high? How exactly is this different from the eminently socially acceptable craft IPA, single-malt & cigar, or "this might be wine" in Mom's to-go sippycup.

These shops card *at the door*. Little Kaitlyn & Hunter are not going to just be able to wander in and lift a gram of OG Kush. Smoking in public is already illegal, even if you could get a contact high by walking past someone smoking, which you can't.

So many straw men in this debate we could start a scarecrow business.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

@William Hitchens

Your comment only serves to prove your ignorance on cannabis usage laws in California. Consumption of cannabis is not permitted, by state law, on the premises of a dispensary. In fact consumption is only legal inside a residence, unlike all you drunkards slovenly roaming around downtown being loudAF at all hours of the night after leaving a place where its perfectly legal for you consume a much deadlier, less healthy, substance. So, there goes your "Contact high" law as you put it. As for trying to force it "out of sight out of mind" simply leads me to ask you if you feel the same way about bars/restaurants that serve alcohol? No, i didnt think so. My assumption is you believe Reefer Madness to be a documentary. Please educate yourself on the laws and people before you make yourself look and dumber.

This was voted on and passed by he people of the State of California..almost 2 years ago..and we still have people (2) on the Board who are trying to slow the allowing of sale of pot ...just because they are against what the people voted for ..I will and hope that others remember when election time comes up next time. We didn't elect them , for them to do what they want, forgetting what we VOTED for..I guess they would rather we not be given the right to vote . SHAME ON THE 2 WHO ARE OBSTRUCTING our vote. I, for one, will remember..

Kudos to Mayor Siegel and the other Council members who support their constituents (and science) by following the overwhelming choice of MV voters and facilitating the availability of cannabis in the city. Cannabis is much, much safer than either alcohol or tobacco, and in fact has many health benefits that are only now beginning to be unpacked. Mountain View should encourage cannabis in the city as its availability seems to be correlated with lower rates of violent crime, suicide, traffic accidents and opioid use.

>Matichak and Abe-Koga argued in favor of ratcheting up the buffer to 1,000 feet from schools -- a move that would be commensurate with tobacco retailers

False: This rule only applies to establishments whose *primary* business is tobacco, namely a tobacco shop. It does not apply to gas stations, Safeway, drug stores or any of the hundreds (thousands?) of other places throughout the city where cigarettes (which kill approximately 500,000 Americans per year) are peddled.

Of course, alcohol (approximately 88,000 Americans killed per year) is widely available throughout Mountain View even though it is linked to 40% of all violent crime. Cannabis (0 deaths, ever, negatively correlated with violence) is a botanical godsend and is the birthright of all free human beings on earth, including those of us in Mountain View.

There are many recreational or social drugs that have unintended side effects. Nicotine, for example, is (somewhat) addictive. Alcohol can be fatal if taken in sufficiently excessive amounts, or as the result of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of alcohol. DUI commonly means DUI of alcohol, but I think the law also covers DUI of other drugs, including cannabinoids. Humble Observer says, 'people die regularly from caffeine overdosing, including teenagers using caffeine "energy" drinks'.

Non-drug things (eg, tobacco or marijuana smoke) consumed for recreational or social purposes, can cause serious, even fatal, illnesses. Sugar is arguably not a drug, but regulations appear to be needed.

I agree cannabinoids need to be regulated; the extent of regulation is a worthy subject of debate.

Doug Pearson said:
>Non-drug things (eg, tobacco or marijuana smoke) consumed for recreational or social purposes, can cause serious, even fatal, illnesses.

For marijuana (cannabis), that statement is 100% incorrect. Cannabis is not associated with any serious illnesses, and certainly no deaths. In fact, the cannabinoids in cannabis seems to work synergystically with the endogenous endocannabinoid system in all our bodies. Cannabis has variously shown anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-spasmodic, and anti-inflammatory effects, and is also used by many to treat mental conditions like PTSD, ADHD, anxiety, and depression.

Ground Rule No.1: deliver half of your stock of weed to City Hall. Call it a tax or a fee or a bribe. Just hand over the weed and no one gets hurt.

I answered the call for public input on retail cannabis when the city put out the call and I am glad to see that city council is being sensible. I just hope that they a) don't aggressively tax, or b) aggressively permit. After an initial Boom, Cannabis will go through a retraction. Better to not count tax revenues that will contract, or to set up for a Bust.

MVPD is a small police department and does not have the resources required to police these dispensaries. San Jose already has numerous dispensaries, there is absolutely no need for Mountain View to get involved.

Juan: Cannabis dispensaries do not need "policing" as they are not associated with any increased crime. Their presence on streets has in fact been shown to be inversely correlated with crime as they tend to be staffed with more security personnel and cameras than other retail establishments. Banks and 7-Elevens are both more likely to be robbed.