Moralistic hypocrites shaking down a legitimate business. Pot will be legal for recreational use after the November election; then will these types of shops clear the code? Code enforcement is a revenue collecting bunch of stooges - they are part of an unwieldy city staff that is over-paid and over-staffed. This town needs to unincorporated and get rid of these tax mooching slugs.
You can already buy papers and smokes in that same complex. Some of you are just fearfull idiots. Why don't you lobby the city to shut down every store that sells smokes and booze so your precious little offspring will be protected against the evils of life. Use some f(&*^ing logic.
9:06 AM Do you have your tambourine and frilly Puritan garb as you preach the sanctity of your phony self-righteous attitudes? Maybe Big Brother will protect you from all the evils of the world, eh? Informed young people are capable of making decisions without your prescriptive moral codes being imposed upon them.
Yes, prescription drug abuse (opioids) , which often leads to heroin abuse, because heroin is less expensive, is a far greater threat than anyone selling papers and pipes.
just go to D street for your heroin fix. Down town junkies are prevalent.
Its up to the parents of kids to teach them to respect their body and watch what they consume and absorb. You will always be able to get supply from the black market. The real secret is to educate your kids to not want to smoke or put drugs in their system.
Herion, cigs, booze and pot are out there all the time. I choose not to participate most of the time, but sometimes ingest booze. You play you pay. Nothing is life is free and every action has a reaction.
So say the vape store owners as they hook teens into a habit, all for the sake of making money for themselves. Despicable cretins like these should be relegated or rather legislated out of our town. Manjeet has finally done something positive for our community. Who would have thought it possible? Could he possibly hear the bells tolling for his head to roll?
They can't sell to persons under 21. A business trying to make money!!! Despicable!!! Who the hell are you to tell others what they can consume or use? Personal responsibility was supposed to be part of the American experience - maybe that has expired.
Don't give Manjeet too much praise. This was originally approved by the planning dept. and only after citizens complained did they actually go and check out what they were selling.
They were initially given an operational permit. Wasn't that under their name, Vishions Smoke Shop? Staff must have known this was going to be a smoke shop. I can understand their having to remove (or place behind the counter, as an alternative) the so-called "drug paraphernalia," but why are they being forced to remove all smoking materials?
If someone actually checks out the EMC (Encinitas Municipal Code) section cited, it is very unclear. Unclear code, and relying on murky precedent from other cities regarding pot dispensaries, rather than the letter of the law, results in an abuse of discretion on the part of our public officials. Might doesn't make right.
For example, because EMC does not specifically list futons as a permissible merchandise to be sold in a specified zone, does that mean there could be no futon stores? This "permissive zoning" nomenclature gives too much discretion to staff and the City Attorney. Basically, our city attorney is mis-interpretting precedent from other cities.
Again, the relevant precedent Glenn Sabine has referred to at Council Meetings has been referecing pot dispensaries, NOT smoke shops. How can Code Enforcement decide, without any hearing, that Vishions Smoke Shop cannot sell any tobacco products? That is what is being demanded in Code Enforcements notice to cease and desist.
The City has to find a balance between driving legitimate establishments out of business, and following through on an individual complaint.
Before a final decision to impose a fine and before a citation is issued, and a cease and desist order is delivered, the business owner could be allowed to meet with Code Enforcement, and if the complainant is also amenable, they could consider attempting to utilize the new mediation process.
I do remember Puff and Stuff. It was obviously a smoke shop; there is precedent in this city for smoke shops being allowed to operate in a business zone. I don't smoke, myself, but believe those over 18 should have the right to choose, just as those 21 or older can choose to drink.
Smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol are unhealthy habits, but the government should not be in the habit of legislating morality through overly restrictive zoning codes and political machinations.
30.01.090 Prohibition. A. It is unlawful for any person to use real property within the City in a manner that is contrary to the land use designations made applicable to such real property in accordance with the provisions of this title. B. It is unlawful for any person to develop or maintain improvements upon real property within the City in a manner that is contrary to the development standards made applicable to such real property in accordance with the provisions of this title. (Ord. 94-11)
This is the Encinitas Municipal Code zoning ordinance enacted in 1994, subtitled "Prohibition." Contrary to what is listed in the cease and desist order, under "Known Violations: 1. Section 30.01.090 – Unlawful land use not explicitly authorized in the Zoning Code," that section of Encinitas Municipal Code does NOT say anyting about unlawful land uses "not explicitly authorized."
This is a reach. Code Enforcement is relying on the City Attorney's misinterpretation of case law, NOT a direct reading and explicit application of EMC.
Code Enforcement is a shake-down operation on the part of the city. All they do is issue threats and demands and selectively harass citizens or/or businesses. Superimposing vague 'precedents' regarding pot shops to force this place to close down is a reach; another gem determination by our self-serving City Attorney. This city needs pension reform, a reduced city staff and a new city attorney. These ticks are sucking the citizens dry.
Too bad y'all so intent on the right to suck on a burning stick aren't this passionate about all the misinterpretations of code by Sabine/the rest of the crew on other land use decisions.
City Hall has its goals, Municipal Code be damned.
Sabine just got himself another lawsuit to refer to his lawfirm. He will lose, again, as usual. that is a nice little rackett he has going, should be disbarred for a lack of ethics, but still a nice rackett for himself. When the shit hits the fan here and he has to go under oath, things will get real. We want the HEU to go to court, staff does not. When These crooks get asked the hard questions, under oath, they will have commit perjury or come clean. Either way the coruption will be made public.
My understanding was that this shop was less than 1000 feet from a school and that is why it was given a cease and desist notice. I have no objection to a smoke shop, but if the code says 1000 feet and it is really 825 feet from San Dieguito than I understand why it has to go. Let's face it, we have "New Morning" in Cardiff, owned by a wonderful man named Darrel. He sells all sorts of paraphanalia, but has kept under the radar. I hope that if and when marijuana is legal that the City will allow these shops to exist in a form of dispensaries. That's what they do with medical marijuana now. There is a person that checks ID's when a person shows them their card. I would be willing to bet that at at least 1/3 of the population of Encinitas smokes or eats marijuana. At least let's give it a try, just not by a school.
Just what we need is more people behind the wheel stoned on marijuana. I care about my life and the lives of others. Maybe you would feel different if you or a loved one were killed by someone who was driving high.
2:29 I am terribly sorry if anyone you knew got killed by someone who was driving "high". However, statistically speaking, most drivers who kill others are drunk drivers. I personally would prefer to be be, or in front, of a driver who is "high" than one who is drunk. I had a relative get killed by a drunk driver so maybe I am prejudiced the other way.
"I personally would prefer to be be, or in front, of a driver who is 'high' than one who is drunk." (sic)
What a great choice to have.
Here's another: would you rather be murdered by poisoning or by gunshot. Of course, statistically speaking, most murders involve a gun, so poisoning really isn't a problem, right?
Maybe if your loved one was killed by a driver who drank beer, then you should just limit your "prejudice" to driving after drinking beer. Tequila should be okay though.
Or, maybe, consider that your loved one was killed by a driver who was mentally and physically impaired by a chemical substance. Period. Maybe the substance they were on was less important than the fact that they were impaired and should not have been driving.
I know there are some old timers on here but Reefer Madness was all BS. You need to look at the latest science, huge sample size nowadays, and rethink yoir stance. Use has gone down with youth where is it not so taboo. Driving while stoned has yet to show any statistical significance to a higher rate of accidents. Your beer, cocktail, prescription happy pills, and closed mindedness are far more dangerous to the general public than a stoned person.
Is it closed-minded to support decriminalizarion, but not a right to drive stoned?
Want to get high? Be my guest. But A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G that degrades your mental/physical ability to drive a vehicle or react in an emergency is very bad. "Not as bad as" minimizes the fact that it's bad. Drive stoned--go to jail--lose your license.
it is illegal to drive impaired. You can have a drink, pop a pill, be 100 years old, and still drive legally and not be pulled over unless you show signs of being impaired. I would rather share the road with someone medicating with weed. Prescribed drugs are way more powerful, cloud your mind longer, and just plain more imparing. A legal amount of booze added to the mix makes it worse.
No back to the reefer madness myths. That dirty shit you were smoking back in the day would give you a hangover. The stuff nowadays is a much cleaner high and you can get strains that don't even get you high but do relax the body and vice versa. Sports leagues consider it performance enhancing for a reason. If it helps someone sleep, great, they will be better prepared to drive the next morning, unlike melatonin. my point is that lots of things diminish your ability to drive, age included and all of them are legal up to the point of impairment. just because you have a drink does not mean you are drunk and just because you take a hit does not mean you are high or even impaired. I did say stoned above but, to be clear, I am not advocated driving while high and there is a difference.
A rocket scientist would never use the first page hits from google(paid) or use the Gazzette for a source. Read the article, read the study it refers to (they did not link to it or even cite the study)then try to tell me it has any statistical significance whatsoever. Did the study account for population growth? No. Were other drugs/booze were present in their system? usually. Ask the Google what statistical significance is why you are at it. Did you even read the article you posted? Is google your sky daddy? They also have a legal limit in CO so you can have a small amount of THC in you and drive legally.
I don't need to read arguments on both sides of the issue to know the outcome: common sense says more readily available product results in more easily impaired individuals.
I can also look at the folks hanging around the average 7-11 and know the same unsavory atmosphere would be found at "Vishions." The name kind of days it all, doesn't it.
There's that open mind. The unsavory, hardworking ,mexican families that are some of the nicest people in this town. Go to the little market and get some fresh tamales and get a little culture you bum.
Furthermore, there is now way in hell that you can make the assertion that a place that sells bongs(not weed) will contribute to more weed impaired drivers. I could make the case for the opposite result.
People will not have to drive to Oceanside or PB just to replace a bowl or get some organic papers. It stays in your system for 30 days so even if you are in an accident a week after smoking, got blood tested, the data could suggest driving while impaired when infact you were not. So if those stoners are not driving to PB, they are not getting into accidents, ever so slightly changing the data.
If it becomes less taboo, kids will not be so drawn to it. Some studies have suggested this but I am admittedly skeptical and it would probably take a few generations to see any significant change.
I didn't say they were strong arguments...
All that said, the city should never have approved that location. That little mall is overrun by high school kids every weekday at lunch, most are not 18 so they could not go in but that just adds to the curiosity. That is too in your face, a little discretion and common sense would have made this a non issue.
Analogy: if we had more bars in Encinitas, then the average distance for drunks to drive home would be shorter, reducing the total number of drunk driving miles.
Ergo, ipso facto,
The solution to drunk driving is more and more bars.
I'm sure this reasoning sounded bulletproof when you were high.
Manjeet on probation watching his Ps and Qs.
ReplyDeleteMoralistic hypocrites shaking down a legitimate business. Pot will be legal for recreational use after the November election; then will these types of shops clear the code? Code enforcement is a revenue collecting bunch of stooges - they are part of an unwieldy city staff that is over-paid and over-staffed. This town needs to unincorporated and get rid of these tax mooching slugs.
ReplyDeleteYes, let's do unincorporate so the vape shops hook kids free of code enforcement. You live in a tiny, tiny world, 7:27.
DeleteGo get small.
Yes. Build it a block away from the high school, make it easier for them to buy papers and vapers. Get the weed in the alley behind the store.
DeleteYou can already buy papers and smokes in that same complex. Some of you are just fearfull idiots. Why don't you lobby the city to shut down every store that sells smokes and booze so your precious little offspring will be protected against the evils of life. Use some f(&*^ing logic.
DeleteUntil a test is available that can do for pot what can be done for blood alcohol, forget it.
DeleteLet us know when you leave your house, 9:33, so we know to stay home. Just id yourself as "9:33, anything goes" and we'll know it's you.
I believe the term is "Head Shop".
Delete-Ken Kesey
9:06 AM Do you have your tambourine and frilly Puritan garb as you preach the sanctity of your phony
ReplyDeleteself-righteous attitudes? Maybe Big Brother will protect you from all the evils of the world, eh? Informed young people are capable of making decisions without your prescriptive moral codes being imposed upon them.
See 12:00 above. What about uninformed young people?
DeleteAren't they informed once they enter the sacred bong emporium?
Delete12:01 PM Live and learn.
DeleteProbably got more to fear from "legal" opiates and street heroin - this stuff will kill you faster than nicotine, and it is as easily available.
DeleteYes, prescription drug abuse (opioids) , which often leads to heroin abuse, because heroin is less expensive, is a far greater threat than anyone selling papers and pipes.
Deletejust go to D street for your heroin fix. Down town junkies are prevalent.
DeleteIts up to the parents of kids to teach them to respect their body and watch what they consume and absorb. You will always be able to get supply from the black market. The real secret is to educate your kids to not want to smoke or put drugs in their system.
Herion, cigs, booze and pot are out there all the time. I choose not to participate most of the time, but sometimes ingest booze. You play you pay. Nothing is life is free and every action has a reaction.
So say the vape store owners as they hook teens into a habit, all for the sake of making money for themselves. Despicable cretins like these should be relegated or rather legislated out of our town. Manjeet has finally done something positive for our community. Who would have thought it possible? Could he possibly hear the bells tolling for his head to roll?
ReplyDeleteThey can't sell to persons under 21. A business trying to make money!!! Despicable!!! Who the hell are you to tell others what they can consume or use? Personal responsibility was supposed to be part of the American experience - maybe that has expired.
DeleteThese types of businesses bring down the level of the community. Let's all be frank about this. Not in my back yard? You bet.
DeleteWhat are you going to do when pot is recreational? Do you think merchants will have moralistic stands and not sell it? Think again.
DeleteWe'll deal with recreational pot when the time comes. For now, no thank you to lowering the neighborhood.
DeleteDon't give Manjeet too much praise. This was originally approved by the planning dept. and only after citizens complained did they actually go and check out what they were selling.
ReplyDeleteI would never give Manjeet praise. Agree he's on probation, otherwise it would've been another rubber stamp job.
DeleteSo the kids go to Oceanside to get what they want. Closing this store won't accomplish a damn thing.
ReplyDeleteSure it does. It sends the "kids" to O'side.
Delete"Vishions" - what exactly is that supposed to mean? Geez.
ReplyDeleteThey smoked too much dope and failed grammar school spelling.
DeleteThey were initially given an operational permit. Wasn't that under their name, Vishions Smoke Shop? Staff must have known this was going to be a smoke shop. I can understand their having to remove (or place behind the counter, as an alternative) the so-called "drug paraphernalia," but why are they being forced to remove all smoking materials?
ReplyDeleteIf someone actually checks out the EMC (Encinitas Municipal Code) section cited, it is very unclear. Unclear code, and relying on murky precedent from other cities regarding pot dispensaries, rather than the letter of the law, results in an abuse of discretion on the part of our public officials. Might doesn't make right.
For example, because EMC does not specifically list futons as a permissible merchandise to be sold in a specified zone, does that mean there could be no futon stores? This "permissive zoning" nomenclature gives too much discretion to staff and the City Attorney. Basically, our city attorney is mis-interpretting precedent from other cities.
Again, the relevant precedent Glenn Sabine has referred to at Council Meetings has been referecing pot dispensaries, NOT smoke shops. How can Code Enforcement decide, without any hearing, that Vishions Smoke Shop cannot sell any tobacco products? That is what is being demanded in Code Enforcements notice to cease and desist.
The City has to find a balance between driving legitimate establishments out of business, and following through on an individual complaint.
Before a final decision to impose a fine and before a citation is issued, and a cease and desist order is delivered, the business owner could be allowed to meet with Code Enforcement, and if the complainant is also amenable, they could consider attempting to utilize the new mediation process.
I do remember Puff and Stuff. It was obviously a smoke shop; there is precedent in this city for smoke shops being allowed to operate in a business zone. I don't smoke, myself, but believe those over 18 should have the right to choose, just as those 21 or older can choose to drink.
Smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol are unhealthy habits, but the government should not be in the habit of legislating morality through overly restrictive zoning codes and political machinations.
30.01.090 Prohibition.
DeleteA. It is unlawful for any person to use real property within the City in a manner that is contrary to the land use designations made applicable to such real property in accordance with the provisions of this title.
B. It is unlawful for any person to develop or maintain improvements upon real property within the City in a manner that is contrary to the development standards made applicable to such real property in accordance with the provisions of this title. (Ord. 94-11)
This is the Encinitas Municipal Code zoning ordinance enacted in 1994, subtitled "Prohibition." Contrary to what is listed in the cease and desist order, under "Known Violations: 1. Section 30.01.090 – Unlawful land use not explicitly authorized in the Zoning Code," that section of Encinitas Municipal Code does NOT say anyting about unlawful land uses "not explicitly authorized."
This is a reach. Code Enforcement is relying on the City Attorney's misinterpretation of case law, NOT a direct reading and explicit application of EMC.
Well said.
DeleteHis useful time in Encinitas is over. Find a new city attorney that knows law.
DeleteCode Enforcement is a shake-down operation on the part of the city. All they do is issue threats and demands and selectively harass citizens or/or businesses. Superimposing vague 'precedents' regarding pot shops to force this place to close down is a reach; another gem determination by our self-serving City Attorney.
ReplyDeleteThis city needs pension reform, a reduced city staff and a new city attorney. These ticks are sucking the citizens dry.
Too bad y'all so intent on the right to suck on a burning stick aren't this passionate about all the misinterpretations of code by Sabine/the rest of the crew on other land use decisions.
ReplyDeleteCity Hall has its goals, Municipal Code be damned.
Sabine just got himself another lawsuit to refer to his lawfirm. He will lose, again, as usual. that is a nice little rackett he has going, should be disbarred for a lack of ethics, but still a nice rackett for himself. When the shit hits the fan here and he has to go under oath, things will get real. We want the HEU to go to court, staff does not. When These crooks get asked the hard questions, under oath, they will have commit perjury or come clean. Either way the coruption will be made public.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding was that this shop was less than 1000 feet from a school and that is why it was given a cease and desist notice. I have no objection to a smoke shop, but if the code says 1000 feet and it is really 825 feet from San Dieguito than I understand why it has to go. Let's face it, we have "New Morning" in Cardiff, owned by a wonderful man named Darrel. He sells all sorts of paraphanalia, but has kept under the radar. I hope that if and when marijuana is legal that the City will allow these shops to exist in a form of dispensaries. That's what they do with medical marijuana now. There is a person that checks ID's when a person shows them their card. I would be willing to bet that at at least 1/3 of the population of Encinitas smokes or eats marijuana. At least let's give it a try, just not by a school.
ReplyDeleteJust what we need is more people behind the wheel stoned on marijuana. I care about my life and the lives of others. Maybe you would feel different if you or a loved one were killed by someone who was driving high.
DeleteExactly - and how can you "prove" that someone's high?
DeleteThey could rename it Smoky Smoky and move to Leucadia.
ReplyDelete"Smoky Smoky" HA HA! Maybe put it in the old "F Street" building. One stop shopping for all your over 21 needs.
ReplyDelete2:29 I am terribly sorry if anyone you knew got killed by someone who was driving "high". However, statistically speaking, most drivers who kill others are drunk drivers. I personally would prefer to be be, or in front, of a driver who is "high" than one who is drunk. I had a relative get killed by a drunk driver so maybe I am prejudiced the other way.
ReplyDelete"I personally would prefer to be be, or in front, of a driver who is 'high' than one who is drunk." (sic)
DeleteWhat a great choice to have.
Here's another: would you rather be murdered by poisoning or by gunshot. Of course, statistically speaking, most murders involve a gun, so poisoning really isn't a problem, right?
Maybe if your loved one was killed by a driver who drank beer, then you should just limit your "prejudice" to driving after drinking beer. Tequila should be okay though.
Or, maybe, consider that your loved one was killed by a driver who was mentally and physically impaired by a chemical substance. Period. Maybe the substance they were on was less important than the fact that they were impaired and should not have been driving.
I know there are some old timers on here but Reefer Madness was all BS. You need to look at the latest science, huge sample size nowadays, and rethink yoir stance. Use has gone down with youth where is it not so taboo. Driving while stoned has yet to show any statistical significance to a higher rate of accidents. Your beer, cocktail, prescription happy pills, and closed mindedness are far more dangerous to the general public than a stoned person.
ReplyDeleteAre you defending driving high?
DeleteIs it closed-minded to support decriminalizarion, but not a right to drive stoned?
Want to get high? Be my guest. But A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G that degrades your mental/physical ability to drive a vehicle or react in an emergency is very bad. "Not as bad as" minimizes the fact that it's bad. Drive stoned--go to jail--lose your license.
Fortunately, we have Uber, and kids these days seem to take it pretty often and avoid impaired driving.
DeleteSo long as Lisa Shaffer doesn't join her fellow traveler Ben Hueso to smash Uber for the benefit of the taxi cartels.
it is illegal to drive impaired. You can have a drink, pop a pill, be 100 years old, and still drive legally and not be pulled over unless you show signs of being impaired. I would rather share the road with someone medicating with weed. Prescribed drugs are way more powerful, cloud your mind longer, and just plain more imparing. A legal amount of booze added to the mix makes it worse.
ReplyDeleteNo back to the reefer madness myths. That dirty shit you were smoking back in the day would give you a hangover. The stuff nowadays is a much cleaner high and you can get strains that don't even get you high but do relax the body and vice versa. Sports leagues consider it performance enhancing for a reason. If it helps someone sleep, great, they will be better prepared to drive the next morning, unlike melatonin. my point is that lots of things diminish your ability to drive, age included and all of them are legal up to the point of impairment. just because you have a drink does not mean you are drunk and just because you take a hit does not mean you are high or even impaired. I did say stoned above but, to be clear, I am not advocated driving while high and there is a difference.
Don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to know this was going to happen:
ReplyDeletehttp://gazette.com/study-finds-fatal-crashes-in-colorado-have-risen-since-legalized-marijuana/article/1559401
The Google hits (pun intended) go on for pages.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
DeleteAnnnnd read the whole story. Lots of data mixed in that the article admits skews the result.
DeleteTry, try again.
A rocket scientist would never use the first page hits from google(paid) or use the Gazzette for a source. Read the article, read the study it refers to (they did not link to it or even cite the study)then try to tell me it has any statistical significance whatsoever. Did the study account for population growth? No. Were other drugs/booze were present in their system? usually. Ask the Google what statistical significance is why you are at it. Did you even read the article you posted? Is google your sky daddy? They also have a legal limit in CO so you can have a small amount of THC in you and drive legally.
ReplyDeleteI don't need to read arguments on both sides of the issue to know the outcome: common sense says more readily available product results in more easily impaired individuals.
DeleteI can also look at the folks hanging around the average 7-11 and know the same unsavory atmosphere would be found at "Vishions." The name kind of days it all, doesn't it.
There's that open mind. The unsavory, hardworking ,mexican families that are some of the nicest people in this town. Go to the little market and get some fresh tamales and get a little culture you bum.
DeleteLove Just Peachy, ya bum. Don't love the drunks lounging around at D and the 1.
DeleteFurthermore, there is now way in hell that you can make the assertion that a place that sells bongs(not weed) will contribute to more weed impaired drivers. I could make the case for the opposite result.
ReplyDeleteReally?? Now, this I would like to hear.
DeletePeople will not have to drive to Oceanside or PB just to replace a bowl or get some organic papers. It stays in your system for 30 days so even if you are in an accident a week after smoking, got blood tested, the data could suggest driving while impaired when infact you were not. So if those stoners are not driving to PB, they are not getting into accidents, ever so slightly changing the data.
DeleteIf it becomes less taboo, kids will not be so drawn to it. Some studies have suggested this but I am admittedly skeptical and it would probably take a few generations to see any significant change.
I didn't say they were strong arguments...
All that said, the city should never have approved that location. That little mall is overrun by high school kids every weekday at lunch, most are not 18 so they could not go in but that just adds to the curiosity. That is too in your face, a little discretion and common sense would have made this a non issue.
Brilliant!
DeleteAnalogy: if we had more bars in Encinitas, then the average distance for drunks to drive home would be shorter, reducing the total number of drunk driving miles.
Ergo, ipso facto,
The solution to drunk driving is more and more bars.
I'm sure this reasoning sounded bulletproof when you were high.
Ergo, ipso facto?
DeleteIf I was your Latin teacher I would hold you back a year.
Fail in latin and logic. Head shops do not serve weed.
Delete"So if those stoners are not driving to PB, they are not getting into accidents"
Delete