The upcoming night of May 7, the Lakewood City Council will recognize with a proclamation in their honor, the “more than 940 Clover Park School District (CPSD) certified employees (who) work to open student’s minds to ideas, knowledge and dreams” (p.005, of 534).
Ironically, that same night, that same City Council, will “hear public testimony and receive additional information regarding a proposal” to either allow or prohibit retail marijuana.
The City Council has already heard from the CPSD Board the latter’s position on pot.
The members of the CPSD Board, together with the Superintendent, do not view pot as productive in realizing the potential – much less opening the minds – of their pupils’ pursuit of “ideas, knowledge and dreams.”
They want weed to be unwelcome in Lakewood, believing cannabis would cannibalize – erode, if not eradicate – the educational capabilities of 11,865 students in 17 elementary schools, four middle schools, two high schools, one alternative school, Harrison Preparatory School, and two specialty schools within Western State Hospital.
At the January 22, 2018 joint meeting of the Lakewood City Council and Clover Park School District Board, CPSD Board President Schafer said that the CPSD Board of Directors does not “see the drug as a benefit to students or increasing their ability to succeed in schools or the community’” (p.014).
But what the City Council wants to know, at least according to the questions members asked per the minutes of the April 23 Study Session (p.019), is can the City have more than two retail marijuana outlets; and should the City “allow the sale of marijuana and want to limit offensive signage, would the City run afoul to some of the sign regulations”?
Here’s what’s foul.
Is youth drug use rising in states with legal marijuana?
Yes. In Washington State as “the perceived harmfulness of marijuana declined among eight and 10th graders, marijuana use increased.”
Is youth marijuana use rising faster in states with legal medical marijuana laws?
“Yes. Youth use rates in states that have legalized marijuana outstrip those that have not.”
Does THC – the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis – make youth “more likely to engage in risky behavior”?
Yes.
And yet pot is promoted locally in Lakewood as “creating opportunities for education” (p.012)?
You imply that youth could buy marijuana? Nowhere do you point out it would be illegal and REGULATED.
David, I think you would get farther if you could point out the travesty of other Washington cities waylaid by opium-style dens of slobbering teens. Unless it’s not happening?
It’s not “illegality” that’s the issue with teens getting pot; it’s the legal availability and social acceptance of marijuana that’s the problem. Teens purchased pot when it was illegal for anyone to purchase it so the fact that it is now illegal for them to buy or otherwise obtain “legal” pot from an adult isn’t much of a leap. Indeed, now that it is available legally to adults and socially acceptable as legal, it removes perhaps the last vestige of illegality from the equation in a teen’s mind much like beer and cigarettes have been for generations. As far as regulations go, the 1 ounce per sale rule is a travesty since any adult can make multiple purchases to build a cache of pot; it’s called “looping”. We’re also seeing a glut of pot in the market from overproduction by growers and producers and where does that “regulated” surplus wind up? Trans-shipped to other states and municipalities where it is still illegal and out the back doors of local businesses not regulated or authorized to sell pot. Oh by the way: it’s still illegal according to Federal law but apparently the rule of law does not apply to pot….at least in Washington State.
An awful lot of ‘ifs’ in that equation, Mr. Arbeeny.
Actually few if any ifs at all because that’s exactly the way it is happening. For stoners who already were involved in criminal activity (purchasing pot) prior to legalization, a little thing like violating other laws regarding pot doesn’t mean much. Do a little research on the impacts of legalization here and elsewhere.
Can’t seem to reply directly to your thread.
“Stoners”.
You sound like Mr. Flanagan that called his tenants and former constituents ‘slobs’.
Sorry. Somehow I’ve missed the breaking headlines about Washington spiraling into squalor along with the rest of the nation that sees the natural remedy that a plant has to offer over pharmaceutical malfeasance.
If you don’t want it, don’t buy it.
Prohibitionists are the real ‘slobs’.
Old curmudgeons who refuse to face up to reality.
It’s satisfying seeing them continually lose – their days are done.
So, we can have “X” amount of bars and ‘pain clinics’ in Lakewood, but not cannabis. smdh at the reefer madness in this town.
We NEED the tax revenue. Stop giving it away to Tacoma and Spanaway!
Ms. Dodson,
Your line of thinking seems fairly clear. Using your logic then what should follow is the establishment of city approved whore houses and child pornography centers.
While prostitution and child pornography are against the law, most dopers have already suggested we ignore Federal law.
After all, whore houses and child pornography centers can bring our city much needed tax revenue and that being the thought process we should try to get the jump on Tacoma and Spanaway.
Joseph Boyle –
P.S. For 3/4 of a century I have avoided becoming a whore house, child pornography, or dope shop customer, so do not expect any tax revenue from me.
“We need the tax revenue”? Is that the basis for your moral and ethical decision making? For what do “we” need the tax revenue and just how much is that going to cost us in addressing the social consequences?
Do you even know how much tax revenue the City of Lakewood would take in with legal pot? 0.49% added to a $40,000,000 is nothing more than a rounding error.
So much for the “we need the tax revenue” argument.
Anyone can buy it from drug dealers. Only adults can go in the stores.
Cannabis is becoming more socially accepted because it is wholesome.