One alleged gang member of something called the “Fuck Everyone Gang” is in custody on charges of stealing $970,000 worth of merchandise, and police found him after he used his getaway vehicle in a music video.

KPIX posted a story Wednesday night about an alleged Oakland gang called the Fuck Everyone Gang, saying they’re “accused of burglarizing dozens of businesses across state.” Wait a minute, is there really a Fuck Everyone Gang, or is this just local TV news sensationalism looking for clicks?

Oh yes, there absolutely is an Oakland-based Fuck Everyone Gang. We can find references to this gang going back to a 2019 Bay Area News Group article where one of the gang’s members was sentenced for a fatal 2018 shooting at a Mike’s Mini Mart on MacArthur Boulevard. That article describes the Fuck Everyone Gang as a “subset of the ENT/YNIC gang in Oakland,” and it is relevant that the shooting happened at a convenience store.

The Bay Area News Group has a newer report this week that three members of the Fuck Everyone Gang are accused of stealing $970,000 worth of merchandise in 34 burglaries during a just two-month span. And there are enormous similarities between these robberies. The gang seemed to exclusively target high-end shops like Louis Vuitton, and corner convenience stores, at which they would only steal cases and cartons of cigarettes.

They hit Louis Vuitton stores in Walnut Creek and San Diego, and a reported 20 convenience stores in the Bay Area. Walnut Creek police detective Jenna Kolmeister started noticing similarities.

"The detective there at the task force was seeing all these cigarette store burglaries that were happening at night. The suspect vehicles were all the same," Kolmeister told KPIX. "It was the same thing every time. The same people every time, the same MO every time, the same vehicles every time."

But if you are going to use the same vehicle over for multiple thefts, it is probably best that you do not use that vehicle in your rap video, and then post said rap video to YouTube.

26-year-old Robert Lee Johnson is also the rapper above who goes by the name Big Paid. Investigators have used security video to allege that the very vehicle in this rap video was used to carry out many of the above-described robberies. Johnson is currently in custody, per the Bay Area News Group, on 30 charges of burglary and vandalism.

Oh, and at the time of the burglaries, he was apparently wearing the GPS ankle monitor courts had forced him to wear for previous charges.

Johnson is accused of having two accomplices in the crimes; 22-year-old Oakland man Alejandro McDonald (also seen in the above video), and Oakland resident Quinn Edwards. Both of those suspects remain at large.

Related: Police: Louis Vuitton Smash-and-Grab Was Coordinated on Snapchat [SFist]

Image: Big Paid via Youtube

Cartons upon cartons of stolen cigarettes were being sold in East Bay convenience stores, as the California Highway Patrol just learned in busting up a fencing operation with well over $100,000 in stolen cigarettes.

It sure appears that cigarettes being sold in some East Bay shops lately were actually stolen cigarettes, and some of them were even stolen out of state. KTVU reports that the local division of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has arrested an Oakland man for allegedly running a $137,000 stolen cigarette ring, an operation the CHP describes as “a sophisticated network involved in the illicit trade of stolen and unregulated tobacco items.”

We see from the photos in the above Monday CHP Facebook post that the confiscated cigarettes were being sold in what appears to be a legitimate corner store or gas station operation. The CHP’s Cargo Theft Interdiction Program (CTIP) does not name the stores involved, only that they arrested 35-year-old Oakland man Bashar Saleh Mohamed Nagi for theft and possession of stolen items.

"These are products these business fronts are selling for massive amount of profits," CHP officer Andrew Barclay said in a statement to KTVU. "Right now they're being processed as evidence to do an investigation as to where they may have come from and things like that so there's still a lot of work being done behind the scenes."

The investigation, which also involved the Oakland PD, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, and California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, got warrants served at what they say were “multiple locations in Oakland.” The CHP describes these locations as “one residence and three store fronts in Oakland,” so it sure seems there were multiple retailers involved, who may or may not have been aware that the cigarettes were stolen.

The CHP said this operation also recovered items allegedly stolen from Old Navy, Safeway, and Target. Though that haul was relatively small potatoes, with the items being valued at “over $5,000.”

Related: Vallejo Police Arrest 'Red Bull Thief,' Who Allegedly Stole $15K Worth of Vodka, Red Bull, and Other Goods [SFist]

Image: CHP - Golden Gate Division via Facebook

The ink is barely dry on the ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products that San Francisco supervisors passed unanimously in late June, but the tobacco industry is firing back with cartons of cash in what appears to be a massively well-funded effort. District 10 Supervisor Malia Cohen’s ban on menthols, flavored chewing tobacco, and flavored liquid vape products is set to take effect on April 1, 2018, but the Chronicle reports that a conglomerate of tobacco companies already has a big-money referendum in the works to snuff the measure — and they’re reportedly paying a gaudy $5 per signature to petition signature-gatherers who will presumably hit the streets any minute now.

The effort against the flavored tobacco ban is as much the opposite of “grassroots” as is possible. This is a primarily out-of-town operation, ironically called Let’s Be Real, San Francisco, whose website is called AdultsLikeFlavors.org, and draws its primary funding from R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris (who now prefer to be called Altria Client Services). The effort is coordinated by a San Rafael-based law firm called Nielsen Merksamer, but in a press release describe themselves more as “a coalition that supports San Francisco’s long-standing spirit of not restricting choices or telling responsible adults what they can and cannot do.”

This “coalition” has only 30 days to collect 20,000 signatures, which seems pretty daunting. But they’re paying that five bucks per signature according to the Examiner, so that should help. I’m just going to hope the Department of Elections verifies those signatures carefully.

“This petition shows that they are desperate,” Sup. Malia Cohen told the Chronicle. “My legislation threatens the sale of their products, including Newport cigarettes, the No. 2 brand for all cigarette sales in the U.S. and the No. 1 brand in menthol sales.”

If the referendum is successful in getting those signatures, the flavored tobacco ban is suspended and the supes would vote on it again. They can repeal it, or if not, the referendum would be put on the June 2018 Primary Election ballot.

Such a campaign would recall the carpet-bombing of mailers and marketing that inundated voters in previous Soda Tax and Airbnb ad campaigns. “What they want to do is not just beat this ballot measure in San Francisco,” political consultant Jim Ross told the Examiner. “They want to send a message to other counties that they’re going to spend boatloads of money to make sure the measure fails.”

And other counties are already following San Francisco’s lead and stepping off the tobacco lobby’s reservation. CBS 5 reports that Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors also approved a flavored tobacco ban Tuesday night. That measure could go into effect as early as mid-August.

Related: Hoard 'Em If You Got 'Em: CA Cigarettes To Cost $2 More Per Pack

Smokers, it's time to start setting aside more cash for your habit, or to quit it altogether: On Saturday, the voter-approved tax increase of $2 per pack of cigarettes kicks in, making your cancer sticks costlier than ever.

Proposition 56 is to blame/credit, the measure California voters passed in November, 2016 that increased taxes from 87 cents per pack to $2.87.

And before you assume that vaping will get you out of the new fees, be aware that as of Saturday, "products like electronic cigarettes and e-liquids" will also face the increased tax, "based on their wholesale cost" the Davis Enterprise reports.

San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer, who sponsored the initiative, said last May that the intention of the law was to curb smoking, not generate dough. “If you raise the price, fewer young people will start smoking or ever get addicted to a substance that will ruin their health and cause them to die earlier," he said in May. "That’s the biggest selling point.”

Steyer might not be wrong: According to as noted by NPR last September, a 2014 report from the US Surgeon General suggested that "For every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, smoking goes down 4 percent."

And as the smoking rate in CA is pretty low — about 12 percent, NPR reports, the extra two bucks might be the incentive some puffers need to kick the habit. "It may be that a price increase that will follow Prop. 56 will be enough to just get these light, intermittent smokers to just say, 'Forget it,' " UCSF professor and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education Stanton Glantz opines.

According to opponents, however, the tax will just "increase black market sales of cigarettes," Reuters reports. Tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds spent at around $90 million to defeat Prop 56, also claiming that "just 13 percent (of the new tax revenue) goes to tobacco prevention and control programs," opposition spokesperson Beth Miller said. All in all, the tax is expected to generate $1 billion to $1.4 billion in new tax revenues for the state, most of it going to Medi-Cal.

Smokers who persist after this weekend won't just be paying more in taxes (and, one assumes, their mortality), as tobacco makers also raised prices on their products in anticipation of this weekend's increase. Investopedia reports that beginning March 19, smokes from major manufacturers went up by eight cents per pack, "a direct move to minimize the hit to their profits, as smokers absorb price increases. This willingness from consumers to pay for cigarettes and tobacco products is another reason the government does so well in taxing them."

One person who appears willing to pay the extra fees is Dolores Park smoker Austin Thomas. In a video taken last fall by Mission Local, Thomas characterized the increase as "f**king bulls**t, man," but said he "would just deal with it."

Related: Video: Mission Smokers Reveal Thoughts On Proposed Cigarette Tax Increase

With so many local and state measures on this November's ballot, it's perhaps easy for some to get lost in the mix. Proposition 56 may be just such a measure — and while not as attention grabbing as legalizing recreational marijuana, for example, it would still hit smokers right in the lungs. If passed, the statewide proposition would raise the tax on a pack of cigarettes two dollars above its current level.

Mission Local found some smokers around the neighborhood and asked them what they thought about potentially having to shell out additional cash for smokes. The results, as one might imagine, were mixed.

"It's fucking bullshit, man," Austin Thomas told the channel as he puffed away in Dolores Park — saying he "would just deal with it."

Not all smokers agreed, with at least one the channel spoke with coming out in favor. And, unsurprisingly, the group lobbying to pass the proposition has a lot of support. "Prop. 56 gives voters the power to Save Lives and protect the next generation from a costly, deadly smoking habit," Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom told Yes on 56. "As a father of four, I’m endorsing the Save Lives initiative and standing up once again to the tobacco companies’ relentless, predatory targeting of our kids."

If backers of the measure are successful, this will be the first significant increase of the California cigarette tax in almost 20 years. The hope is that it will reduce smoking statewide — a notion which NPR reports is backed up by various studies suggesting people quit or cut down when prices go up.

California's current statewide tax on cigarettes is 87 cents per pack — one of the lowest in the country.

Previously: Cigarettes Likely To Get More Expensive As $2 Tax Gathers Enough Signatures For Ballot

Over one million signatures have been gathered in support of a California ballot measure that would increase the tax on cigarettes statewide. As long as the secretary of state’s office verifies that at least 585,407 signatures are legit, the Chronicle reports the measure will be on this November's ballot — giving residents across the great state the first chance in almost twenty years to raise the taxes on a pack.

“If you raise the price, fewer young people will start smoking or ever get addicted to a substance that will ruin their health and cause them to die earlier," initiative sponsor Tom Steyer told the paper. "That’s the biggest selling point.”

The increase on smokes would be the first of its kind in nearly two decades, and would raise the tax by $2.00 to $2.87 per pack. The signature-gathering effort was sponsored by Save Lives California, which according to its website is "a coalition of doctors, dentists, health plans, labor, hospitals, and non-profit health advocate organizations."

"Cancer and other tobacco-related diseases kill more people than car accidents, murder, suicide, alcohol, illegal drugs, and AIDS combined,” Dr. Steven Larson, president of the California Medical Association, said in a press release. "The heart of this initiative is simple: Taxing tobacco saves lives by getting people to quit or never start smoking."

If passed, this measure would be yet another strike against the tobacco industry following the signing into law earlier this month by Governor Jerry Brown legislation raising the smoking age to 21. The Chron predicts the measure would generate between $1.1 billion and $1.6 billion a year. According to its supporters, that money would be allocated to "fund healthcare costs and research into cures for cancer and other tobacco related diseases."

Related: Sorry Kool Camel Kids, Bill Raising California Smoking Age To 21 Signed Into Law

Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law a host of new bills designed to regulate tobacco and nicotine products, the most impactful of which is the raising of the statewide smoking age from 18 to 21 years old. With the signing of another bill, written by State Senator Mark Leno, that reclassifies all e-cigarette products as tobacco products, these new age restrictions will also apply to vaping. So reports the LA Times, which further notes that as these bills were approved during a special session, they will take effect on June 9 of this year — sooner than they would have otherwise.

Other measures signed Wednesday close loopholes related to smoking bans in workplaces, and expand no-smoking areas at schools and school facilities.

“The governor’s signature on Tobacco 21 is a signal that California presents a united front against Big Tobacco," State Senator Ed Hernandez, the bill's author, said in a statement. "Together, we stand to disrupt the chain of adolescent addiction."

With the signing into law of the new age restrictions, California becomes the second state (after Hawaii) to raise the smoking age above 18 to 21. San Francisco supervisors, of course, passed a similar measure earlier this year which is set to go into effect on June 1.

Interestingly, Hernandez seemed sensitive to that classic argument, often applied to the drinking age, that if a person can be drafted at 18 then he should be able to smoke/drink at that age as well. And so, Hernandez wrote into the law that active military personnel are excluded from the rules.

The Associated Press reports that, according to The Institute of Medicine, roughly 90 percent of daily smokers began using some form of tobacco by the age of 19. As such, proponents of the new law hope it will cut down on the number of people who pick up smoking in the first place.

A trade association for the e-cig industry called Smoke-Free Alternatives issued a statement saying, "California took a step backwards today by reclassifying vapor products as tobacco. Stigmatizing vapor products, which contain no tobacco, and treating them the same as combustible tobacco while actively seeking to economically penalize smokers attempting to switch is counterproductive to public health"

The California Medical Association supported the law, with its president noting that it was time for a new approach to regulating tobacco. “It is long past due for California to update our approach to tobacco," observed Steven Larson, "and with the governor’s signature on these life-saving bills, we have done just that.”

Related: Cigarette Buying No Longer An All-Ages Event in SF, As Supes Vote To Raise Tobacco Purchase Age To 21

Though buying cigarettes might soon become a 21-and-over activity for any smoking Californian, San Francisco isn't content to wait for Governor Jerry Brown to decide if he's gonna OK the package of tobacco legislation California's State Senate approved Thursday that would increase the state's smoking age to 21.

Yeah, though it looks like the whole entire state is headed in that direction, like a commenter in the early 00s, SF is still eager to declare "Second!" In this case, the "second" is a pedantic one: according to a press release sent by Supervisor Scott Wiener when SF's "you must be 21 to buy tobacco products" ordinance was approved by the Board of Supes last week, SF is "the second largest city in the country, after New York City, to set the tobacco purchasing age at 21."

That distinction isn't that distinct, even in CA, since as of 2016 Santa Clara County has also raised the limit to 21, Berkeley's city council approved an increase to 21 on January 26 of this year, and Healdsburg OKed a 21-and-up law in 2014 before caving to tobacco industry threats.

Unlike the statewide law, SF's only prohibits folks who are under 21 from buying tobacco products, but doesn't disallow them from smoking, vaping, etc. The CA-wide law now on Brown's desk would increase the age one is allowed to smoke, which would also outlaw purchase of the products.

So, though obviously the local point is likely to be pointless very soon (unless Brown decides against approving the statewide law), why not make a little show of signing SF's proposal into law? That's what is happening RIGHT NOW, according to Mayor Ed Lee's schedule of public events (in fact, it's the only thing on it for today):

Once passed by Lee, the SF law will take effect on June 1. For the first year, tobacco sellers who violate the law will have a grace period during which they will be hit only with a warning, and will be reminded of the law with mailers, on-site visits, stickers and notices from SF's Department of Public Health. After that year, any offenders could have their ability to sell tobacco products to anyone suspended or revoked. Of course, since by then California's law will either be in effect (superseding local laws) or vetoed (paving the way for some fun local lawsuits, I suspect), all that is probably moot.

Previously: California Legislature Votes To Increase Smoking Age To 21
Cigarette Buying No Longer An All-Ages Event in SF, As Supes Vote To Raise Tobacco Purchase Age To 21

We warned you back in November, and now it's official: After an unanimous vote at the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, San Francisco will soon raise the age one is allowed to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21.

The law, which takes effect on June 1 of this year, will prohibit tobacco purveyors from selling anyone under the age of 21 cigarettes, pipe tobacco, and, yes, e-cigs and vaping products — as District 8 Supe Scott Wiener, who sponsored the legislation, told us last year, in 2014, "under legislation authored by Supervisor Mar, e-cigarettes were classified as cigarettes under our Municipal Code." So that's out too, kids.

The law will not criminalize the possession of tobacco products by the under-21 crowd, Wiener emphasizes, just the purchase thereof.

In a press release sent by Wiener's office late Tuesday, they note that "San Francisco becomes the second largest city in the country, after New York City, to set the tobacco purchasing age at 21" and that "Earlier this year the State of Hawaii raised the tobacco purchase age to 21."

The NorCal city of Healdsburg raised the purchase age to 21 in 2014, but backed down from that stance after repeated legal threats from the National Association of Tobacco Outlets. Santa Clara County has also raised the limit to 21, in a law that kicked in at the beginning of 2016, and Berkeley's city council approved an increase to 21 on January 26 of this year.

Thomas Briant, executive director of the NATO, claims that San Francisco cannot make the decision to raise the limit on its own, and must wait for a statewide ruling from Attorney General Kamala Harris before pre-empting state law.

Wiener clearly disagreed Tuesday, saying that “To be clear, our law does not in any way interfere with or undermine state law. In fact, it makes the state law easier to enforce.”

At the Supes meeting Tuesday, Wiener seemed to suggest that tobacco industry opponents bring their opposition on, as "Our city has a history of taking on major industries in the name of public health, in the name of consumers, and winning."

Wiener is likely referring to the suit Philip Morris USA filed against SF back in 2008, when the Supes voted to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies in 2008. The tobacco company dropped that suit in October, 2009.

Briant also takes issue with the age limit as it relates to when one is an adult, repeating as he has in the past that "18-year-olds are adults when it comes to voting, serving in the military or signing a contract — and smoking should be no different."

But Wiener clearly believes that the law's potential to save lives supersedes that argument, saying via press release that "studies have shown that over 90% of smokers begin before the age of 21."

"In 2009, Congress mandated a federal study as part of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to research the effects of raising the tobacco purchase age. Conducted by the Institute of Medicine, and released in early 2015, the study found that increasing the tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21 would decrease national smoking rates by 12% and reduce youth initiation of smoking by 25%," Wiener's press release states.

San Francisco's legislation would allow a one-year grace period for tobacco sellers, during which they will be reminded of the law with mailers, on-site visits, stickers and notices from SF's Department of Public Health. Those caught selling to 18-20-year olds during that year would be hit with a warning. After that year, the offenders could have their ability to sell tobacco products to anyone suspended or revoked.

Previously: Under 21? Then Forget About Buying Smokes In SF, Says Supe

According to the Walgreens "store locator," the drugstore/emergency cat litter shop/place to grab gum and milk has around 50 locations across San Francisco, quite a feat given our city's notorious opposition to chains. So how did this business gain such a toehold in SF, given the protests many formula retail ventures have wrought? According to former SF mayor turned SF Chronicle columnist Willie Brown, it's all his fault — and, indirectly, Gavin Newsom's and the Board of Supervisors'.

Brown claims that the proliferation of Walgreens began when SF's Supes approved then-mayor Newsom's proposal to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies back in 2008. Though Phillip Morris filed a (later dropped) lawsuit against SF, arguing that "the ordinance violated its First Amendment right to free speech," Walgreens was apparently unwilling to sit back and let the tobacco giant do all the work, and "flew out and hired" Brown "to give them advice on how to beat back the ban," he claims.

From his column:

I told them flat out that given the politics of San Francisco, there was no way to beat it. But I also knew that there was no way that the Board of Supervisors was ever going to mess with all the the mom-and-pop groceries that sell smokes. So I made a suggestion. Start selling food, and redefine yourself as a grocery store.

They put in a grocery section, and lo and behold, the food took off like gangbusters among all the new apartment dwellers in the city.

And that's why, though "we are fast becoming a city of Starbucks, Subways [seriously?], Peet’s and Walgreens," writes Brown, "I had nothing to do with the explosion of coffee and sandwich shops, but I do take blame for the stampede of [sic] Walgreen’s throughout the city."

This certainly isn't the first time Brown has beat the cigarette drum — back in another Chron column from 2012, he claimed that if a proposed $1 increase to the cigarette tax was approved, California would be overrun by cigarette smugglers "as street dealers realize there is more money to be made selling hot cigarettes than there is selling dope." Wonder who he was working for when he made those claims in our paper of record?

Of course, anyone who lived here before 2008 might recall that there sure were an awful lot of Walgreens in the city back then, too, so Brown's claims might be that much hooey. Hooey that's published, as I noted, in our paper of record, but still hooey!

Then again, given how rarely Brown's willing to accept blame for any damn thing, we might just take this one and move on. Here's hoping that this admission, bogus as it might be, leads to some more genuine ones. From what I hear, confession is far better for the soul than a five dollar foot long.

Related: Under 21? Then Forget About Buying Smokes In SF, Says Supe

The price of cigarettes across San Francisco is set to increase on January 1, as the City Controller has announced a planned doubling of the so-called cigarette litter fee. The fee, first implemented in late 2009, added a 20 cent charge to all packs of smokes sold in San Francisco with the goal of helping to defray costs associated with cleaning up cigarette butts.

The new fee will be 40 cents per pack.

City Controller Ben Rosenfield announced the increase in a memo to the Board of Supervisors, reports the Examiner. The 2009 legislation approving the original fee entitles him to make the decision unilaterally.

Rosenfield apparently had the authority to increase the fee all the way up to 84 cents, but thought better of it.

“Setting the fee at the permissible level of 84 cents per pack would result in a 400 percent increase from the current fee level of 20 cents per pack,” the paper quotes his memo as reading. “In order to reduce the volatility of the fee level, the Controller’s Office is limiting the fee increase to 40 cents per pack, an increase of 100 percent.”

At the time of the initial fee implementation, then Mayor Gavin Newsom told the New York Times that he hoped the fee would have an impact beyond funding street cleaning.

“In general, fees help reduce the consumption and use of tobacco,” explained Newsom. “And we think that will have a very beneficial public health component.”

Newsom went on to point out that a 2009 "litter audit" found that cigarettes made up nearly 25 percent of trash found in public spaces.

So has the fee helped to keep cigarette trash out of public spaces? Well, maybe. The Examiner highlights a 2014 study which found "53 percent of litter consisted of tobacco-related litter." However, "[the] primary reason for this difference was that the sites were substantially cleaner in 2014 (with a total of 3,881 individual pieces of litter) than they were in 2009 (with 12,123 individual pieces of litter).”

The spot with the most litter in the 2014 study? Folsom at 20th Street.

So smoke up, smokers of San Francisco! Just please remember to put those butts in the trash when you're done (thanks!).

All previous smoking coverage on SFist.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors voted unanimously yesterday to impose the city's strict no-smoking laws on e-cigarettes and vaporizers. In other words, you and that e-cig you've been happily puffing away on will soon have to take it outside the bar with the rest of the smokers.

Supervisor Eric Mar, who previously snuffed out fun by banning Happy Meals, said his legislation was mainly designed to protect children. "Sorry for poisoning all of you," Mar said while puffing away on one during yesterday's board meeting in City Hall. "But it's really important to show - I have a banana-flavored one and a peach-flavored one ... they are really targeted at young people and right now it's not regulated."

Under Mar's bill, e-cigs and vaporizers will be banned from most public places and pretty much anywhere but on the curb. It will also impose special permits on anyone looking to sell e-cigarettes and prohibit their sale outright at pharmacies, which the city did for regular cancer sticks back in 2008.

Naturally, the e-cig faction was out in force at yesterday's meeting to defend their right to smoke flavored nicotine vapor pretty much anywhere they'd like. Most of the argument from groups like the Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association claimed the Board misunderstood what e-cigarettes are for. The dreaded "Tech" word even came out. From the Chronicle:

"It's not a tobacco product, it's a technology product ... and this is stigmatizing people who use the product - it sends the wrong message to the public," [SFATA executive director Cynthia Cabrera] said. "It's interesting that the city would rush to regulate something as if it's tobacco when the FDA is still thoughtfully considering the issue. The city is deciding they have more information than the FDA, when the FDA has been looking at it for years."

The medical marijuana advocates from NORML, phoned in their opposition with a prepared statement claiming a ban on vaporizers would harm patients who have no other choice but to vaporize their legal weed.

The legislation needs one more vote at next Tuesday's Board meeting and a signature from Mayor Lee (who is reportedly on board) before it takes effect.

Previously: Here's Eric Mar on The Daily Show Discussing That Happy Meal Ban
[Chron]

Photo by Bhautik Joshi.

Photo by Troy Holden.

Photo by Troy Holden.