Categories
BLOG

does 711 sell rolling papers

New 7-Eleven Won’t Sell Blunt Wrappers

by Thomas MacMillan | Jan 31, 2012 12:14 pm

In a bid to win over skeptical neighbors, a couple trying to open a 24-hour convenience store on Whalley Avenue has promised not to sell anything that could be used for drugs, not even cigarette rolling papers.

The promise is laid out in an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. and Mrs. Desai, who own a 7-Eleven in Naugatuck, seek permission to open a branch of the 24-hour convenience store chain at the corner of Whalley Avenue and Ramsdell Street.

The BZA will meet on Feb. 7 to consider the application. Click here to read it.

Neighbors pushed back against the request when it was first submitted in November. They worried that another convenience store, especially one open all night, would lead to loitering and crime. Andy Orefice, vice-chair of the local management team, said such stores sell items like “blunt wrappers” that can be used for drug use.

In a new application to the board, dated Jan. 12, attorney Anthony Avallone writes that the proposed 7-Eleven would distinguish itself from other stores nearby by not selling any of those items. “The franchisee has agreed, and will agree on the record, not to carry cigarette rolling papers, drug paraphernalia, any item which is sold in a glass tube, or any product which might questionably encourage any illegal form of drug use.”

The store needs to be open 24 hours because it would occupy a busy stretch of road and “significant sales are made between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.” Avallone writes.

To address crime concerns, the store would install additional parking lot lighting and exterior video cameras, to which New Haven police would have “instant access,” the application states.

Orefice said “an army” of representatives of the 7-Eleven corporation turned out for the last meeting of the Westville-West Hills Community Management Team on Jan. 11. “I give them a lot of credit for coming out and listening to people.”

Orefice said he personally still has “mixed feelings” about the application. He said he wants to find out if the commitment to not sell drug paraphernalia is enforceable.

He said he has “cautious optimism” about the proposal and will be there at the Feb. 7 BZA meeting.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Comments

posted by: Honda on January 31, 2012 12:46pm

Just wondering if anyone took in consideration that we have a drug and alcohol rehab center 50 feet on East Ramsdell Street, it’s not fair to the clients who is trying to change there lives to have a store of this nature near them on Whalley Ave to sell alcohol.

People please think before reacting to the wishes of this owner.

posted by: joe on January 31, 2012 1:06pm
posted by: THREEFIFTHS on January 31, 2012 1:13pm

In a bid to win over skeptical neighbors, a couple trying to open a 24-hour convenience store on Whalley Avenue has promised not to sell anything that could be used for drugs, not even cigarette rolling papers

The owner should sue the Board of Zoning Appeals on the grounds they have no right to tell him he can’t sell something that is not Illegal.Show me wear cigarette rolling papers are Illega.Again the crooked two party system at work.

posted by: ZeeDee on January 31, 2012 1:24pm

This is stupid. There are several convenience stores within walking distance that do sell these items. As for crime and loitering, this takes place in that neighborhood already. The . (down the street) is a hot bed for prostitution and drugs. And let’s not forget the “massage parlor” across the street. Are the neighbors that delusional?

posted by: Curious on January 31, 2012 1:52pm

Awesome! I will shop there. I won’t shop at the other, sketchy, seedy-looking convenience stores in the same area.

Honda . I hope your post was sarcastic in nature.

posted by: Rachel on January 31, 2012 2:42pm

Not a good place to build a 7-11, there is already plenty of traffic, accidents, and congestion in this area.

posted by: ignoranceisbliss on January 31, 2012 2:48pm

Continue the opposition. You cannot rely on promises made to the BZA. Once the permission is obtained the City has no capability (and little willingness) to enforce compliance.

posted by: HhE on January 31, 2012 3:24pm

Threefifths, your past comment about Bill Cosby owning his success to a secret organization, and not his incredible talent of being as funny or funnier than anyone else alive and never needing to be crude or vulgar to achieve this, aside, this post is your most cake taking. The whole point of zoning ordinances and BZAs is this; to balance the rights and needs of a property owner with the rights and desires of the community. Agreeing to not do anything illegal (including sell anything illegal) ought to be a given. Agreeing to not sell something that is legal, but undesirable, in order to get planning permission is perfectly fine. This is not the crocked two party system at work, this is local government actually doing its job.

ZeeDee, there is a blighted, foreclosed property on my street. Does this mean I ought to not keep my own house up? Taking back a neighborhood starts with “This far, and no father.” Saying “no” to further problems is the first step. Sanctioning more problem because of existing problems is the road to building a ghetto.

posted by: Beers Street on January 31, 2012 4:35pm

The druggies just buy a cigar,unravel it,take some of the tobacco out,reduce the amount of provided paper,and reroll it with drugs in the new product..One should check http://www.sots/state of ct.com for contributions to any New Haven Pol from this mega head shop store.It’s obvious they hired an Attorney who doubles as the Zoning instant approver

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on January 31, 2012 6:46pm

@HhE.It is not the job of the Board of Zoning Appeals to tell some one that they can’t sell something that is that is not Illegal.As ZeeDee said There are several convenience stores within walking distance that do sell these items.If this be the case why has no one shut them down.Also I had at talk with some police officer,They told me that none of those thing are is Illegal.The only reason he argreed not to sell those thing is he afraid of not get the permits to open his store.And last local government is part of the Two Party crooked system.They appoint those to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

posted by: flax on January 31, 2012 9:36pm

I thought the 711 Owners were preemptively promising the Board of Zoning that they would not sell those particular items… and not vice versa.

also, add “Chore Boy” to the list.

posted by: zmo on January 31, 2012 9:43pm

Who uses blunt wrappers? We use cigars!

posted by: HhE on January 31, 2012 10:39pm

Threefifths, yes it is the job of the BZA.

It is the job of the police and courts to address selling things that are illegal.

Current use, existing non conforming condition, and past practices, are not the same as seeking a variance or new use.

Time to lift the needle out of the grove.

posted by: Great News on February 1, 2012 8:03am

Nice to see a business owner who decides to be a good neighbor and a good citizen.

It always disgusts me how many gas stations and convenience stores sell rolling papers, crackpipes, etc.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on February 1, 2012 9:05am

posted by: HhE on January 31, 2012 10:39pm
Threefifths, yes it is the job of the BZA.

Show me.If Stop and Shop want to carry cigarette rolling paper can BZA stop them.If I had a store I wish BZA would try to stop me from selling something like cigarette rolling papers.

Current use, existing non conforming condition, and past practices, are not the same as seeking a variance or new use.

Show me were variance can stop me from selling a legal product. 7-Eleven across this country sells cigarette rolling paper.This man was forced to make a promise not to sell cigarette rolling papers, drug paraphernalia, any item which is sold in a glass tube, or any product which might questionably encourage any illegal form of drug use.”What would stop a person from geting a vendor license and siting up a table with the same thing.If this was me I would have them in court and I would win.

posted by: westville man on February 1, 2012 10:14am

Me and my family live in the area and drive by this location frequently. While we are not thrilled w a 7-11 going in there, it certainly beats an empty, large corner lot.
If we could have filled it quickly, we could afford to be pickier. But it’s been vacant way too long and 7-11 is not all that bad.
With the widening of the street and improved traffic control signals there, the timing is better as well.

posted by: haveweallgonemad? on February 1, 2012 10:52am

According to the FBI, New Haven is the twelfth most dangerous city in America.

Obviously, the problem is that there are too many convenience stores.

posted by: Of course on February 1, 2012 10:55am

Great News..um…could you give us a full list of the things that disgust you personally so we can restructure civilization around them? Thanks.

posted by: Stephen Harris on February 1, 2012 1:03pm

I wouldn’t be thrilled about a 24-hr convenience store near me. I just don’t see why that is needed. An economic argument isn’t valid.

Also, the BZA isn’t empowered set a condition prohibiting the sale of anything that’s legal.

posted by: Stephen Harris on February 1, 2012 1:30pm

You wrote: “The whole point of zoning ordinances and BZAs is this; to balance the rights and needs of a property owner with the rights and desires of the community”.

That’s incorrect. The BZA is charged with balancing the rights of the property owner/applicant against the written ordinance. The desires of the community do not trump the ordinance.

You also wrote: “Agreeing to not sell something that is legal, but undesirable, in order to get planning permission is perfectly fine”.

No its not fine at all. Agreeing to do something with the understanding that an approval hangs in the balance is coercion, which is illegal.

The ordinance is a legal document. No one likes everything in the ordinance, I certainly don’t. But so what. BZA members cannot substitute what they would like for what is written. The merits of the application vis a vis the ordinance is all that counts.

posted by: Elaine Braffman on February 1, 2012 1:53pm

It was my last West Hills/Westville/West Rock management team meeting…..and after listening to potential owners and corporate representatives of the possibly new 7 Eleven, I was happy to see all the residents ask great questions, want certain restrictions and assurances and in general just absolutely know what they are doing! Andy O. and all the rest…. very proud of you and your diligence regarding these type of issues and concerns. Good Luck! Will be with you in spirit.
Elaine

posted by: New Haven Urbanism on February 2, 2012 12:10am

“You wrote: ‘The whole point of zoning ordinances and BZAs is this; to balance the rights and needs of a property owner with the rights and desires of the community’.

That’s incorrect. The BZA is charged with balancing the rights of the property owner/applicant against the written ordinance. The desires of the community do not trump the ordinance.”

It is important to add that New Haven’s “written ordinance” is supposed to reflect the rights and desires of the community in addition to promoting economic development, create a framework for good urban design, as well as some other things. So HhE’s point wasn’t completed wrong, just worded a bit incorrectly. Unfortunately, our zoning ordinance, while good in some parts, in severely lacking when it comes to promoting the desires of residents, encouraging a coherent urban environment and promoting appropriate economic development.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on February 2, 2012 8:38am

@Jonathan Hopkins.Show me were the Board of Zoning Appeals can stop the sale of a legal product.

posted by: Stephen Harris on February 2, 2012 9:45am

We agree the ordinance should reflect the desires of the community, promote economic development and good urban form. And New Haven’s should be modernized.

But what I wrote is correct. The Board can’t substitute what they or the neighborhood think for what the text says or what they have the authority to do.

They have wide latitude to approve or deny the extended hours based upon the criteria of Section 63(d)(3). And they can set conditions per 63(d)(5). But the authority to set conditions doesn’t mean they can prohibit the sale of anything legal and they certainly can’t coerce and applicant into agreeing not sell certain items under an intimated threat of denial. The BZA (in all its incarnations since I’ve lived here) has a long history of doing that and it’s wrong.

My point is that because the ordinance is law the BZA cannot substitute what the actual language says or what they have the authority to do for what they or the neighborhood wish, as appealing as that may be.

posted by: westville man on February 2, 2012 12:04pm

Are you getting that conclusion from case law in CT? The ordinance as cited states that the Board can put additional safeguards and conditions on the approval necessary to protect the neighborhood. How is this condition not relevant to that?
In addition, the ordinance states that the Board is not limited to the list that follows.
Can you clarify?

posted by: haveweallgonemad on February 2, 2012 12:30pm

But why stop at drug paraphernalia? Contraceptives encourage teenagers to have sex. Porn degrades women. Lottery tickets encourage gambling. Soda promotes tooth decay. Our tax dollars support Medicare, so let’s prevent them from selling fatty foods to anyone over 65.

Let ‘em open the store but prevent them from selling anything that has the potential to contribute to something we don’t like.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on February 2, 2012 12:55pm

posted by: westville man on February 2, 2012 12:04pm
@ Stephen Harris

Are you getting that conclusion from case law in CT? The ordinance as cited states that the Board can put additional safeguards and conditions on the approval necessary to protect the neighborhood. How is this condition not relevant to that?
In addition, the ordinance states that the Board is not limited to the list that follows.
Can you clarify?

My question to you is can the board stop a person from selling a leagl product.Can you show me in the ordinance.

posted by: westville man on February 2, 2012 1:01pm

while I agree with you that the slope does get slippery, i think your examples are apples to oranges. Promoting illegal activity vs “what we dont like”?
I dont really care if they allow the products or not, i would like to know whether the Board has to power to place that condition on it.
I think the ordinance is unclear on that.

posted by: westville man on February 2, 2012 1:31pm

I just did- the ordinance gives the Board broad powers to safeguard and protect the neighborhood. That’s what it says. It doesn’t have to say “including the sale of legal products”. It purposely leaves that “list” open to the Board.
That is why i’ve asked Harris for further explanation on his assertion, which is more like a conclusion. Perhaps he has some other information we don’t.

posted by: Stephen Harris on February 2, 2012 1:38pm

Conditions have to be related to the criteria used for approval. However, anything not specifically listed but still related to public safety such as adding external lighting where none exists or perhaps a fence to screen an abutting property is ok because it’s not taking anything away from the applicant. It’s not putting him/her at a competitive disadvantage to other nearby merchants who sell the same thing.

But there’s nothing in the general or zoning ordinances or state statutes (See Sec. 8-6, Powers and duties of board of appeals) that permits, or even hints, that the BZA can impose a condition prohibiting something already legal, but not otherwise regulated.

And as to logic, if it’s ok to ban some legal, but not otherwise regulated products, then it’s ok to ban anything else that may be dangerous to the general public. For instance, a condition could be imposed on a car dealer saying you can’t sell SUV’s because the very large size makes them a danger to pedestrians, bicyclists and other motorists. That type of thinking just doesn’t hold water.

posted by: gonemad on February 2, 2012 2:15pm

The Food Drug and Cosmetics Act prohibits the sale or distribution of nitrous oxide for the purpose of human consumption. You can add whipped cream to the list of prohibited items. Make sure the bookstores doesn’t sell civil disobedience handbooks (trespassing), the fast food joint doesn’t package ‘road food’ (distracted driving). but that’s not really the point.

When we lived in Branford, the nearest store had a sign that read ‘bread, milk, ammo.’ Don’t know if it still does. I haven’t been there in awhile…so I don’t quite remember…but I think there’s a glaring difference in the ‘type’ of people who live in these two neighborhoods.

You can buy rolling papers in virtually any convenience store in the state. Why not this one? Because of the ‘type’ of people who live here?

Assuming that the sign’s still there, what’s being created here is a situation where you can sell and advertise ammunition in predominantly white Branford but not sell rolling papers in less predominantly white Westville.

Am I wrong? Is that not the situation that’s being created?

posted by: westville man on February 2, 2012 3:34pm

I know it seems like it, but I’m not really arguing with you. I just want someone to cite some authority for their position since the ordinance clearly states that the Board can place safeguards and conditions they feel are necessary to protect the neighborhood. That is IN the ordinance.
Harris gave me examples (fence, lighting,etc) that are specifically stated in the ordinance already so those are not relevant. Gonemad mentioned ammunition- i recall a Walmart being restricted from selling guns as a permit condition somewhere though they were legal to be sold.
Again, I’m not advocating for this condition- I am asking where the curbing of the Board’s authority is: in the ordinance (i dont see it) or some court decisions. But your opinions aren’t enough for me. And your examples are not analogous.

posted by: New Haven Urbanism on February 2, 2012 3:46pm

SH,
I was agreeing with you and also pointing out that while members of any given community cannot directly influence the BZA to restrict complying building uses, they can do it indirectly through lobbying for amendments/rewriting the zoning ordinance since it is supposed to promote the common good.

posted by: westville man on February 2, 2012 3:57pm

One last thought:

In “Modern Cigarette v Orange”, the Supreme Court of CT held that the Town of Orange could ban the use of vending machines for cigarettes town-wide. They are legal, but also legally banned as well.
Therein lies my question to you.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on February 2, 2012 5:38pm

posted by: westville man on February 2, 2012 3:57pm
One last thought:

In “Modern Cigarette v Orange”, the Supreme Court of CT held that the Town of Orange could ban the use of vending machines for cigarettes town-wide. They are legal, but also legally banned as well.
Therein lies my question to you.

But the court made the ruling,Not the town. Also show me a court ruleing where cigarette rolling papers are ban.Question what if stop and shop start carrying rolling paper now that they are open,Also show me the state law where cigarette rolling papers are ban.Like I said if this was me I would take it to court and would win.

posted by: gonemad on February 2, 2012 8:18pm

Yes, we may missing one another’s points. My outrage that this discussion is even happening isn’t directed at you. You mentioned “promoting illegal purposes” and that clearly isn’t the motivation. This is using zoning to accomplish a form of segregation. Whether or not they have a specific authority to take a specific action to accomplish that segregation doesn’t matter. They do not have the authority to use zoning to accomplish a form of segregation.

The condition that no item that may be used as drug paraphernalia may be sold is impossible and therefore stupid and therefore cannot be the goal. Will there be straws in the 7-11? Does it depend on whether there are also razor blades and and any flat surface? Take the aluminum foil (trick I learned in college) off the shelves, the whipped cream out of the dairy case, take away the Bic pens, cardboard cups and pins (college again – is hashish even available anymore?)

This has nothing to do with “illegal purposes”. This is using an ugly preconception about a group in an attempt to keep that group, defined by its age and ethnicity, off this block.

This is segregation.

posted by: Stephen Harris on February 3, 2012 7:53am

@ JH,
Sorry. I got ahead of myself.

@ Westvilleman,
I know your not being argumentative but just asking questions. If I sound mad I’m not. I know a fair amount about planning & zoning because I worked in that field for many years so I can pass some of that along.

The safety examples I offered are relevant because a particular site may need to enhance those things even if they have them to enhance safety.

The catch-all phrase “general public welfare” is a last line of defense. Boards really don’t want to use that because it’s very amorphus. If it is used they can’t attach just any condition they think of and call it public safety. It still has to have some grounding in statute or case law in order to hold water if challenged.

As to case law, I’ve never read where the court has approved a condition banning one merchant from selling a legal product while permitting others to sell the same thing. And I’ve never heard any land use lawyer mention such as ruling in conversations I’ve had.

In the Orange case the court permitted the town to ban something town-wide, as New Haven did with silly string (yes, silly string). If no one can sell a product, then no one is disadvantaged, but if some merchants are banned, ad hoc, from selling this or that, while others are not, it’s discriminatory.

As to Walmart it’s in a BA zone where guns shops aren’t permitted. Walmart threaten to leave if they couldn’t sell guns. We called their bluff.

The point of all this isn’t to get picky about rolling papers, I could care less who sells them. Rather it’s to get the Board to stop doing something without any clear authority to do so. If there is some statute or case law out there permitting the ad hoc banning of legal products let me know.

posted by: westville man on February 3, 2012 9:58am

Gonemad- segregation, not sure what you mean? I dont think Guilford, Branford, Madison, etc have a liquor store on every corner, check-cashing outlets everywhere, dollar stores, pawn shops, etc like New Haven, either. Their Boards protect their communities.
SH- agreed. I will let you know. My experience is similar to yours and i know that the courts have a general “hands off” local boards making decisions, except where “hardship” is required, such as in a variance request.

posted by: gonemad on February 3, 2012 11:43am

It’s simple. A government act, at any level, that seeks to prevent illegal drug use but is solely or primarily directed at the preferred drug or method of ingestion of one demographic is based upon something other than a general desire to prevent illegal drug use.

Banning the sale of crack pipes and allowing the sale of straws is eerily reminiscent of the disparities in sentencing for rock cocaine and powdered cocaine. One merely has to look at the pharmacology and incarceration rates to know that the major difference between the two forms of the drug and the two preferred methods of ingestion is the ethnicity of the user.

Preventing illegal drug use is not the goal. A partial prevention of illegal drug use is the goal and the division between the part that’s being prevented and the part that isn’t is clearly along real or perceived ethnic preferences.

The question then is why target this one class of drug user and not all drug users? One glaring statistic leaps out. On one side of this property is a neighborhood that (2000 data) is 70% non-hispanic white. One the other side is a neighborhood that is 27% non-hispanic white.

What does it say about us as a society when, in 92% white Branford, you can buy ammunition at your local convenience store but on the edge on a neighborhood that is 73% non-white, we have to restrict the sale of certain legal items that are typically used for illegal purposes by non-whites?

It says that we’re racists.

posted by: westville man on February 3, 2012 12:26pm

i hear you on the drug use, arrest and incarceration disparity. But i dont think it’s that simple.
If you are saying that a white minority is restricting the sale of legal products to a larger Black and Latino community, we agree.
But if it’s the majority community that doesn’t want this in their neighborhood, we dont.
It depends upon who is making the decision for whom.
As an aside, to define people as “non” something, as in non-white, is problematic for me.

posted by: david on February 4, 2012 7:09am

First, I do not think that the store would attract any more crime or loitering than the current 24 hour store currently. I feel unsafe when going there. Second, the area currently is not lite well for people getting off the bus and would add additional lighting and safety. Third, I love their coffee. I have submitted my letter to the zoning hearing for the store. Besides it will add a nice addition to the millions the state wasted to improve Walley ave, which actually made traffic worse.

posted by: david on February 4, 2012 7:14am

Not sure what all the fuss is about rolling papers is but I think if someone wanted them, as with any drug, they will find a way to get it. Convenience usually is not a factor.

posted by: gonemad on February 4, 2012 7:41am

I agree. Unfortunately, the Census Bureau doesn’t agree with us. The Census Bureau divides us according to weird assumptions about ethnicity. Cubans, Mexicans, Colombians are one thing and Germans, Italians and Poles are something else, we’re white or non-white when we’re all really some shade of brown. It’s all ridiculous…but watcha gonna do – except try to fight the ridiculousness of it all.

I’m glad you mentioned it. It’s really the ridiculous heart of this issue. Our assumptions are our enemy when it comes to uniting us and solving our persistent problems in this area. This whole issue is based on assumptions about ethnicity and is firmly rooted in bias.

Personally, I don’t believe that ‘race’ exists. I believe that culture is the distinguishing factor and ethnicity is essentially meaningless. We Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo and build fences to keep Mexicans out.

White, for lack of any other statistical term, college professors who live in Westville use cocaine and/or smoke pot. Let’s be honest about the realities. They don’t smoke ‘blunts’ or maybe they do but again, let’s be honest. Is that the ‘type’ of person that pops into your mind when the question is, who smokes blunts?

At the heart of this is racial, ethnic, age profiling. Again, let’s be honest. I see an article about organized crime and assume that the names end in vowels. I’m Italian. We get away with profiling our own ethnicity but it’s still an unfair stereotype based on ethnic bias. We opt into biases, even when they’re about us.

If Blacks and Latinos are in the fight to perpetuate a stereotype about Black and Latino kids, they’re no more right than I would be in doing so. An Irishman who says we’re all drunks, a Pole who jokes about being stupid. It’s acceptable but just as wrong.

This is in some ways worse than the sentencing disparity. This isn’t about something that’s illegal. This is perfectly legal like swimming in the town pool or riding in the front of the bus. I don’t care if you’re White or Black. The whites only sign is wrong. If you think it’s right, you’re wrong no matter which you are.

This is the thing. If the community wants to fight drug use, fine. But selectively fighting drug use in a way that blatantly targets real or perceived preferences that are based on ethnicity is wrong. It perpetuates our worst assumptions about one another and about ourselves.

I frankly don’t know and don’t think all of the people supporting this know what people use to take drugs or even what drugs people use these days. I don’t how Meth is ingested. If the goal were protecting children, should we ban the sale of cinnamon?

This isn’t a real solution to a real problem. It’s a selective solution to a perceived problem that’s based on ethnicity.

What is it when ‘we’ live over here and ‘they’ live right next to us. This place is right in the middle and we have to stop this thing that those people do? What is that other than an expression of bias?

What does it say about us as a society when in an overwhelmingly white community, no one raises an eyebrow over the fact that you can buy ammunition in a convenience store, while in a neighborhood that’s overwhelmingly white on one side and ‘non-white’ on the other there’s a move to ban the sale of legal items that might be used, as they are predominantly used by ‘those people over there.’

Why blunts? Why not cinnamon? Why crack pipes? Why not straws and razor blades?

Is this who we are? Black, white or green, red or blue, if one supports this, what is one really saying?

It’s a little weird doing this on the Independent. No right-wing whackos to say, “yeah, there’s some good Latino and Black kids but White college professors don’t commit crimes.” The greater stupidities are elsewhere but can we here on the left try not to opt into them.

posted by: gonemad on February 4, 2012 8:03am

Final words on this:

Blunts. Why blunts? Out of the myriad of legal things that can be used for illegal purposes, why ‘blunts?’

This about keeping young Blacks and Latinos off of this block because of assumptions about young Blacks and Latinos that are based on stereotypes that are rooted in ethnic bias.

If melons could be used to take drugs would anyone try to ban the sale of watermelon but leave honeydew melons on the shelves in an attempt to prevent drug use?

Ban the crackpipes. Leave the straws. No ethnic bias there? None at all? This is a general concern about illegal drugs? This isn’t profiling? This isn’t the always subtle Northern white liberal bias at work?

Why ‘blunts?’ Why the thing the screams ethnically biased?

posted by: gonemad on February 4, 2012 8:30am

Just one more thing. We want to step into this clusterbleep in New Haven and add an ethnically biased tinge to it?

Can Mamoun’s sell hookas? Mine goes nicely with the other brass. Never been used by my white hands and pink lips…or anyone else’s.

I’ll be on this loudly if it goes through. I drive by every day but live in Hamden. Not much else I can do.

Hopefully someone will do some head slapping or forehead slapping and ask what the bleep are we doing?

In a bid to win over skeptical neighbors, a couple trying to open a 24-hour convenience store on Whalley Avenue has promised not to sell anything that could be used… ]]>