Kava bar permit denied by city council.

[The Kap'n]

https://palmbeachfreepress.com/2017...pensive-lawsuit-after-building-permit-denial/

I've attached the city council meeting minutes. I'm going to let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Kava bars that serve K@ in ANY capacity should especially take note.

 

[Rick.Sanchez]

Are people just completely blind to how dangerous/addictive alcohol is in comparison to all of these drugs? I guess I should file a complaint about my liquor store since they're selling drugs that mimic controlled substances.

I feel like facts and science don't even matter anymore...

 

[The Kap'n]

Are people just completely blind to how dangerous/addictive alcohol is in comparison to all of these drugs? I guess I should file a complaint about my liquor store since they're selling drugs that mimic controlled substances.

I feel like facts and science don't even matter anymore...

I did think the same thing about coffee too. (Not the addictiveness of it, but just how it could possibly mimic a controlled substance) at least that seems to be the reach

 

[Rick.Sanchez]

I did think the same thing about coffee too. (Not the addictiveness of it, but just how it could possibly mimic a controlled substance) at least that seems to be the reach

Coffee is another good example. There's not even an age restriction on that one, and it can be surprisingly addictive

 

[The Kap'n]

My observation is that there are two parts to this;
1.) A city council that really doesn't understand kava trying to equate it to illegal scheduled chemicals. Their claims are baseless, and it looks like they're going to get sued for it per the article.
2.) K@ sold at a kava bar can reflect negatively no matter how carefully you sell it.

What do I take away from this?
I think this quote from the Police Chief in the PDF speaks volumes "He further stated that the greater concern is K@". I don't say this to downplay point #1 which is obviously their ignorance for both plants. I say this because the negatives are starting to mount regarding the sale of them together.

 

[Krunkie McKrunkface]

in rural America you see young kids buying multiple giant energy drinks and chugging them. It is not good. Very dangerous for them.

 

[TheKavaFlow]

I'm just not sure why people feel the need to keep K@ and kava in the same circles. Kava is great on it's own -- no need to provide anything else at your bars. There's a ton of potential to damage people's lives because K@ and kava are constantly conflated, and it's just not worth the extra dollars these bars are generating. Selling K@ at a kava bar is an irresponsible practice that could damage the ethnobotanical industry as a whole.

 

[Honolulusurfer88]

https://palmbeachfreepress.com/2017...pensive-lawsuit-after-building-permit-denial/

I've attached the city council meeting minutes. I'm going to let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Kava bars that serve K@ in ANY capacity should especially take note.

Hm, I'm actually surprised this doesn't happen more often, to be honest. I'm weary of the continued association of these two plants. I'm very concerned about the damage it's going to do to kava in the long run if people start associating them as interchangeable. With all of the negative attention at K----- lately, bundling it with Kava seems like a surefire way to put kava in a very negative light. I'm not really criticizing a bar's choice to do it, but knowing how masses think, it seems like it's going to backfire woefully.

 

[TheKavaFlow]

From what I've been told, most "kava" bars in America would disappear overnight if they couldn't sell K@, but they use "kava" as a front. I don't think they care that much about the future of kava tbh. If kava gets banned, they will probably call themselves "exotic tea lounges" or "vaping lounges" and will keep selling K@.

What I don't understand are the actual kava bars selling K@ on the side to get a few extra $. Is it really worth the risk? Or maybe I just underestimate the economic potential of K@

We have a plethora of examples of bars that do not sell K@, stating the opposite. I would venture to think that bars that have started to sell K@ suddenly switch their customer base to those who come for the K@ instead of kava -- which would mean they would have a hard time getting their old "kava-only" customer base back.

 

[Rick.Sanchez]

I've always been baffled that the government hasn't been more interested in taxing and regulating these things. How about turning a profit while simultaneously benefitting consumers instead of spending public money to fight a non-existent problem? There must be a lot of pharma money padding our legislators campaigns.

On a separate note, I hate to be the guy that blames the big bad media, but they're certainly not helping. Almost every local news story I've seen on K@ calls it a lethal synthetic opioid or something along those lines, and they seem to be throwing kava into that incorrectly negative picture more and more often. The new drug thats going to kill your kid makes for an attention-grabbing story

 

[mdmace]

Do we? I thought MeloMelo was the only kava bar in mainland America not selling any K@? Plus maybe one other bar somewhere in Chicago (?), I think.

Rooted in San Diego didn't sell Krat the last time I was there. Only Kava and Coffee.

 

[Groggy]

There in lies the problem as I see it, it seems that it always piggybacks off of kava. I think it will only get worst from here on out, specially in the eyes of the people who actually have a say in these things from a legal standpoint. The only way to nip this in the bud imo is to disassociate ourselves from that all together. Technically we don't allow the topic but here we are.

 

[yiki]

This is exactly why i was so strongly against selling K@ in kava bars in the other thread. Pure greed. Leave K@ out of the equation.

Also, it does not have to end here. Serving K@ in Kava bars could not only put kava bars out of business but get some politicians creative when it comes to kavas legal status. You know they like attention and they will bash any minority anytime if they can gain popularity.

 

[Rick.Sanchez]

Personally, I've been trying to get a little more involved by calling my representatives offices to try to voice my concerns about many of the issues that have been mentioned in this thread. I've never received a call back, but I have to believe they can't completely disregard these issues if enough people continually bother them. If anything, it might at least draw a little more attention to our side of things.

 

[Ricardo Piquant]

K@ did him in. He refused to not sell K@. He also refused to disallow those under 18 years of age into the bar.

With those two concessions, he'd be fine. But no. Now, he's lawyering up to fight them. .. no expenses spared

 

[Zaphod]

K@ did him in. He refused to not sell K@. He also refused to disallow those under 18 years of age into the bar.

With those two concessions, he'd be fine. But no. Now, he's lawyering up to fight them. .. no expenses spared

Which in this case will likely just lead to more misinformation, and bad press on Kava. If he was fighting for Kava along with a pile of scientific data and support for why it is safe I would be all for it. In this case it doesn't sound like that is what he is doing. Have to remember politicians don't necessarily act for the public good, and most times don't want to spend time studying up on a product. They will tilt to whatever will get them reelected - either money, or special interests, or if someone yells "what about the kids" you can bet that is the way they will go. In this case they have DEA information (outdated on kava and against other K), and now the under 18 rule is code for "what about the kids". My prediction is this will not go well for him.

 

[Ricardo Piquant]

Which in this case will likely just lead to more misinformation, and bad press on Kava. If he was fighting for Kava along with a pile of scientific data and support for why it is safe I would be all for it. In this case it doesn't sound like that is what he is doing. Have to remember politicians don't necessarily act for the public good, and most times don't want to spend time studying up on a product. They will tilt to whatever will get them reelected - either money, or special interests, or if someone yells "what about the kids" you can bet that is the way they will go. In this case they have DEA information (outdated on kava and against other K), and now the under 18 rule is code for "what about the kids". My prediction is this will not go well for him.

What's interesting, is the commission would have approved it with those two concessions I believe.

But maybe can't survive on just kava? I don't know. There's a libertarian element going on here too imo

 

[Bubba Bula]

My observation is that there are two parts to this;
1.) A city council that really doesn't understand kava trying to equate it to illegal scheduled chemicals. Their claims are baseless, and it looks like they're going to get sued for it per the article.
2.) K@ sold at a kava bar can reflect negatively no matter how carefully you sell it.

What do I take away from this?
I think this quote from the Police Chief in the PDF speaks volumes "He further stated that the greater concern is K@". I don't say this to downplay point #1 which is obviously their ignorance for both plants. I say this because the negatives are starting to mount regarding the sale of them together.

Nothing like "paired association" .

 

[Bubba Bula]

What's interesting, is the commission would have approved it with those two concessions I believe.

But maybe can't survive on just kava? I don't know. There's a libertarian element going on here too imo

Well there should be more libertarian elements in everything. In other words, people need to be of the mindset that a new law - and I mean ANY new law about ANYTHING - will always lessen our freedom and liberty by definition. I maintain that the notion of a true federal republic as our country was originally set up is still a revolutionary idea. Did you ever notice there never is a debate concerning how any proposed law would affect our constitutional liberties?

So back on topic. Where does an unelected bunch of bureaucrats in the DEA get constitutional authority to effectively create a new law by unilaterally banning kava or anything else? According to our constitution, all federal laws should originate in the US Congress.