By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
By Leif Haven
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Kate Conger
By Brian Rinker
By Rachel Swan
Serious About Fun
Not Walnut Creek!: It's sad that the venerable SF Weekly would become the mouthpiece of the San Francisco Police Department and its multipronged War on Fun ["Entertainment Purposes Only," Peter Jamison, Feature, 7/8]. This attack on the Entertainment Commission and the rehashed Pink Diamond exposé has been repeatedly propagated by a reactionary element within our police department. This group has hated the Entertainment Commission's usurping of their power to grant entertainment permits since its founding, and is attempting to destroy the commission by spreading innuendo and half-truths about it and [Entertainment Commissioner] Terrance Alan.
Bottom line: Entertainment is a First Amendment–protected activity, and the commission must grant a permit unless it can be shown that the venue is unsafe or cannot contain its noise. As for Pink Diamonds, this is a strip club and is not licensed by the Entertainment Commission. If it breaks the law, the commission has no jurisdiction in the matter — it is up to the SFPD to cite Pink Diamonds for the reported violations and violence.
It's time for San Franciscans to demand an end to the recent holy war brought by the SFPD and the California ABC [Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control] against live music clubs and nighttime entertainment businesses. If we don't, we will wake up in five years and find that San Francisco has become Walnut Creek after sundown.
Antitheft Stings Steal from Taxpayers
A job for mall cops: In this tight budget environment, why are the police wasting time and resources on efforts with such a low success rate ["Sanctuary Abatement Operation," Lauren Smiley, News, 7/8]? How much money was spent on these operations?
They weren't trying to catch thieves; they were selling "stolen" goods to random people. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective for Walgreens and Nordstrom to beef up their antitheft programs, rather than make the taxpayers subsidize lax corporate practices? The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the police and court time because these businesses don't want to hire more loss-prevention staff.
Blog Comments of the Week
In response to a blog reporting that this year's Renaissance Faire in Golden Gate Park would be cancelled due to restrictions imposed by the city: Bad news all the way around. What a waste of a good show, S.F.! You don't go changing big theatrical productions at the last minute unless you really want to kill the show. Shame on San Francisco; the "Fog Faire" has been a delightful project. I hope the city has more sense and that the promoters persevere for a show next year and into the future.
In response to a blog reporting that marijuana legalization ads would soon start airing on TV: Yes, finally people are starting to take this seriously. I smoke cannabis every night after work and wake up in the morning and go back to work. What's wrong with that? Mind you, my work happens to be very boring data entry; it sucks, but I have to pay the bills. Cannabis does not make me lazy or incompetent at my job; it simply brings a smile to my face after dinner and before I go to bed. What's so bad about that? Why is a beer (or two!) with dinner perfectly acceptable but a bowl (or two!) not? Medically speaking, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and if it was legal then vaporizers would be more affordable and the negative effects of smoke would be mitigated. Of course, cannabis, like all drugs, has different effects on different people. If you are one of those people who get lazy or mentally incompetent, then don't smoke it! Some people are lactose intolerant; they avoid milk. I can't handle alcohol; I don't drink. But cannabis has a very positive effect on me — there is no reason the government or anyone else should tell me I can't use it.
The news story "Ripped" [July 1], by Anna McCarthy, incorrectly identified CrosSFit of San Francisco in a number of instances when it should have named CrossFit, Inc. Also, the story implied that CrosSFit changed a workout plan due to a lawsuit in Virginia that targeted CrossFit workouts, and that was not the case. SF Weekly regrets the errors.