Second Thoughts: Sensible hope for city’s pot ban
by Jon Mendelson/Tracy Press
Jun 21, 2012 | 13924 views | 41 41 comments | 839 839 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Anyone who expected a quiet final approval for an ordinance to ban growing medical marijuana in Tracy was proven wrong Tuesday, June 19.

The amendment to city code was indeed passed. But it was far from quiet.

Several young adults tarried as late as 11:40 p.m. as part of a last-ditch effort to convince the City Council not to forbid cultivating medical pot inside city limits.

One delivered a long speech suggesting the council’s pending action showed “a lack of imagination.” Another presented a respectful case from the perspective of a patient, caregiver and entrepreneur.

Yet another took the road less tactful, telling the council that no matter its decision, “We won’t stop growing it,” before storming out of the chambers.

The defiant one returned moments later, just long enough to deliver the line of the evening: “Go to hell, evil bastards!”

While it’s usually tough to sympathize with politicians, the man obviously didn’t grasp the intent behind the council’s unanimous decision.

Having sat through several discussions leading up to the final council vote, I think it’s pretty clear what the ban on growing doc-approved reefer is designed to do. And what it isn’t doing — which no doubt slipped past the enthusiastic speaker at the Tuesday council meeting — is putting the crosshairs on the guy growing six plants in a closet to ease the chronic fatigue of chemotherapy.

At least, it shouldn’t be.

I would hope that if you’re truly supplying for your own need as a California medical marijuana cardholder and don’t cause trouble for the neighbors, you won’t find cops and code enforcement at your door because of this tweak in city code.

On the other hand, if you’re cultivating a clutch of cannabis and find yourself the repeated target of thieves with guns and baseball bats, you should have something to worry about.

I see this ordinance being used to go after public nuisances — a charitable way to describe the people who stretch the state Compassionate Use Act to grow as many plants as possible, often attracting a criminal element in the process.

Tracy residents have shared horror stories of backyards habitually trekked through by armed individuals and groups looking for a free score from a local grow house. The homeowners are understandably enraged by the trespassing, and rightfully afraid of the potential hazard to life and limb.

If that weren’t enough to make this an issue worthy of council action, consider this: According to police — and my personal experience backs this up — if you’re growing enough pot to attract crime, you’ve probably got a surplus. And chances are you’re selling it for profit on the side.

Personally, I think marijuana should be legalized across the country and its cultivation and distribution regulated along the lines of alcohol. But that’s a different column.

What we’re discussing here is a set of growers who fail to realize — or possibly don’t care about — the negative impact they have on their community.

Either way, if the house in question is a menace to the neighborhood, Tracy’s code enforcement and police officers should have every tool at their disposal to declare a grow house a public nuisance and restore peace and quiet.

And it’s not like medicinal growers who get on the city’s radar will be thrown in the slammer. Medical marijuana is still legal in the state — any city action would be on the level of a municipal code violation only.

So to Tuesday’s yelling man: spare the ill-informed insults.

There’s no reason to bash the City Council for using the limited options at its disposal to try to nip this problem in the bud.

• Second Thoughts is a personal opinion column by Editor Jon Mendelson. Share your thoughts at jmendelson@tracypress.com.
Comments
(41)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
doorsc
|
June 28, 2012
All I am asking of you is to answer me this: why are we so comfortable with smoking and tobacco being legal while so against pot not being legal too. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. If the argument is that people have free choice to use or not use a detrimental product, then why are we denying people pot? There are so many pharmaceutical drugs available legally that are worse for the body. I want to point out there is a hypocrisy and politics involved here. I am neither in favor of tobacco or pot smoking. That is not the point.
doors17
|
June 28, 2012
doorsc, perhaps the answer is if any of us smoked a couple of cigarettes and then we got into our cars the effect of smoking tobacco would not danger our abilities to drive safely or endanger the lives of others. If we smoked a couple of joints the same could not be said.

This is one of those issues where I find myself on the fence. Both sides to legalize pot or not can make great points to support their point of view. But I definitely support the medical use for those who are suffering. I’ve known those who have and they found it helpful in dealing with the agony they were experiencing, and someday I or any of us could one day find ourselves in such a situation.

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 28, 2012
Two reasons actually. First is money. Those who have it illegal and have tobacco and alcohol legal, even though all are bad for you, make money off the arrangement.

The second, an more sensible reason, is that society at large, that means a majority, don't want it legal and if that society determined that the rest of it should be illegal, based on the scientific proofs available to virtually everyone with half a mind and an internet connection, those things would be illegal as well.

I am sorry if I misunderstood your motives but your writings came off as a typical pot smoker attempting to justify his actions. You're rather rude questioning of backinblack's data is what strengthened that erroneous belief.

The sad fact is that regardless of legality or illegality people are going to do it and attempt to justify their actions for doing so.

Society, in it's rather finite wisdom, then decided for the good of society at large to make such things illegal if not to protect those who have not learned to control themselves and make responsible decisions.

Would you think it wise to let everyone at any age drive? What about prostitution? Or sex with minor children? What is the age of consent? Is it 21, how about 16, in some countries it's 12 and even not considered.

Our society has decided, at the Federal level, marijuana is to be illegal. Right or wrong, you can't ignore the law by passing a law in a state or municipality to make it legal.

And there is another slant dealing with hypocrisy. Not accusing you but you seem to be one that desires freedom to do virtually anything. But we both know that virtually anything doesn't include everything, theft or murder perhaps. So, if you want freedom to do anything at any time you desire, based on your own determination, wouldn't you say that you are somewhat hypocritical when someone else does one of those things and you are outraged by it?

Well, there is the best answer I can give as to why. And yes, politics is involved. Every time a law is suggested, politics gets involved.

Yet there is another solution to the problem and it involves complete and perfect freedom. But people don't like to discuss it and when they decided better on their own politics was born and we see the result of it in the world today.

Go read the books of Kings and Chronicles in the Bible and you will get some idea as to what I am speaking of.

Alas, that's not in popular culture today so I doubt if you will do so. But isn't it odd that while one is so ready to accept the things of this world they are not able to accept the things of the spirit? Odd isn't it?
backinblack
|
June 28, 2012
doorsc, I don't think anyone here is saying they are comfortable with smoking/tobacco. Not talking about tobacco or alcohol while discussing the legalization of reef does not mean people don't care. Tell you what, if you want to start a movement to delegalize tobacco I'll be the first to sign up, however, I don't think we'll get far and why stop at tobacco?

The greatest current health threat to our country is obesity. If we ban tobacco let's go after fast food chains, donut chains, sugar manufacturers, candy makers, etc. Might as well throw in the phramaceutical companies turning U.S. citizens into med dependent addicts.

Where should we stop? I often wonder how many people who rail against tobacco, alcohol, and reef are overweight. Too me if we had a well educated, well informed, and motivated health conscious population, these conversations would not be needed.

RedHotChilliPeppers
|
June 28, 2012
Who is comfortable? Please don't smoke. And if you do. Stop it.
backinblack
|
June 28, 2012
Ornley, I don't mind answering at all. I've never smoked tobacco in any form, I tried a cigarette when I was around 12 and that was it for me.

Although nowhere near the extent of my younger days I still enjoy a cocktail here & there, and I also enjoy a puff here & there. I also have 1-2 cups of coffee per day which I've done for the last 5 years or so, before then I never drank coffee. Years ago I was at a party and a buddy said you know you're getting old when you start drinking martini's and coffee. I had to laugh because that was right about the time I started doing both.

Conversely and this is going back to when I was younger, I rarely touch soda's, fast food, donuts, candy, or foods which contain sugar & salt.

Herein lies the point I've been trying to make, there are certain things which are flat out bad, tobacco being one, sugar & salt are a couple more. Others and I place alcohol & reef in this category, have benefits & negatives so if done in moderation and depending on the individual the benefits can carry the day, or at minimum the negatives do not appear.

cont.

backinblack
|
June 28, 2012
In my opinion too many people go to one extreme or the other. One day milk is great the next it's wait a minute, same for eggs, and lord knows how many other things over the years where contradictory information comes out.

We hear of one athelete who suffers negative effects from steroid use, all of a sudden they are the scourage of the earth. Fact is steroids have proven medical benefits, the problem comes in when individuals abuse the steroids.

I've stated before you are on the money when you say it's a personal thing, however, when it affects the rest of us that's when it's everybody elses business - such as smoking in a restaurant or other type of building.

As I've opined before, what affects one may not affect another, what kills one may not kill another but for those who choose something like smoking do it away from the rest of us. Don't drive drunk or under the influence of reef. Also, don't expect the rest of us to pay for the healthcare of those who treat their bodies like a garbage can.

Personal responsibility baby
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 28, 2012
"All things in moderation."

You alone are responsible for your actions and not someone else. Therefore it stands to reason that if you cause yourself problems because of what you are doing then you should suffer the consequences for your actions and not someone else.

And that someone else includes the faceless, nameless society that one might expect needs to pay the consequences for one's on actions.

Your freedom and rights ends when they start to negatively impinge on someone else freedoms and rights.

Yes, we should help those who are in a position where they cannot help themselves but if they are able to help themselves and do things to harm themselves or their bodies and suffer negative consequences of things that have been shown to be bad for you, society is under no obligation to step in and help that person other than to do what it has already done to show that person the facts about what that person is doing.

No Ornley persona here because it needs to be said so that it can be understood.

God tells you the consequences and lets you choose. I can do no differently and will say, "Choose wisely."

PS

backinblack

I kinna thought so but wanted ta hear it frum ya. See? We're really not all that different in our thankin.
DTB1445
|
June 28, 2012
Medical Marijuana has been around for a long time. It's called "marinol" It comes in a pill form. No lung damage, no carcinagens, available through prescription. End of argument. No need to smoke it, grow it, or fight over it. It is here, now and all you need to do is go to your (legitimate) Dr. for a prescription.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 28, 2012
Bingo

Exactly what I have been sayin all along. But, as we all know, th medical usage of th stuff ain't what people are all riled up about. It's as simple as this, they wanna get high.

Ya know, if ya breath deep an fast fer a couple of minutes an hold yer breath ya will get th very same feelin an even see stars.

Can't say it's good fer ya but it's cheaper than pot an as far as I know it's legal.

An just fer th educated, it's called hyperventilation.

victor_jm
|
June 28, 2012
A mature soul desires clarity of mind.

Shelly says this: “So I guess I would rather them [her children] be a pothead than a drunk.”

Really? Does your choice have to be one or the other? Why must it be either? Why use this illogic in your argument in favor of marijuana use? Furthermore, why compare marijuana with alcohol when arguing the detriments of either? This debate isn’t about tit for tat.

Also, Shelly, yes, many “great minds [extraordinary, I prefer]” have used mind-altering drugs, but most of them did so as immature, callow souls—and don’t suppose the use of these drugs as the genesis of their thoughtfulness and creativity. Extraordinary minds don’t elect a lifetime of drug use as a viable path for cognitive fecundity. Still, let’s not include artists in this argument because their “supposed greatness” often lies with a puerile following.

What does this mean? Steve Jobs claims the use of LSD as “one of three most significant events in my life”? Why did he believe this? Do you suppose he was dropping acid all his life? What is the context of this assertion? Did he have an epiphany while on LSD? Do you suppose any epiphany someone might have could be experienced while sober? The fact is this: youthful exuberance and callowness leads many of us astray.

So many young people, from “decent” families, indulge in marijuana, but because of their upbringing—the instruction they received from their parents and other life-affirming institutions—they desire something better as they mature and realize sobriety is the path to cognitive success. This same influence is absent from the children of “indecent” households. You know what I am talking about. To sanction another drug for mind sedation will affect more the impoverished class than the enlightened class. Too many aspects of our culture are degraded, so why add another obstacle to the human endeavor toward spiritual maturity?

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 28, 2012
Well put an I completely agree.
backinblack
|
June 28, 2012
doorsc, Since when is presenting evidence from a reliable source going on a tirade? Read a little more carefully and you would notice a reference to The Mayo Clinic, you will also notice quotation marks. This means it's their info/opinion, not mine.

Here's what else you would have noticed if you read more carefully:

"I think tobacco is bad, period. As for the rest, all things in moderation"

That one is from me. You may also have missed on a different comment section in which we both posted comments, I stated I voted to legalize reef. I also have stated a number of times I think tobacco is about the worst thing a person can put in their body. I also stated although two wrongs doesn't make a right, I don't see any reason to not legalize reef seeing as alcohol & tobacco are legal.

Anti pot tirade? Yea, whatever. Here's a little friendly advice, before you go on a rant against someone try a little harder to understand the point they are trying to make. By the way:

"But pot, which is actually used for medicinal purposes and does not cause cancer"

That's from you, I guess you know more than the Mayo Clinic.

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 28, 2012
Gotta personal question ta ask ya an if ya don't wanna answer I understand.

Are ya a current pot user, tobacco user, alcohol user or have ya, like me, reform frum usin those thangs because ya have made a personal decision that thair bad fer ya.

Hey, it's a difficult struggle an one not many can do. Fer example, I still struggle with caffeine an I know how bad it is fer ya.

Almost wish it too was illegal but that would fly like a lead balloon like bannin tobacco an alcohol. Our society just ain't ready fer that one.

But I do thank it sorta funny how folks will drink decaff an yet load up on caffeine with Coke, Jolt or MtDew without givin it a second thought.

Strange creature man, he know's what's bad fer him but still does what he can.
doorsc
|
June 27, 2012
"marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke and has the potential to cause cancer of the lungs and respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke is commonly inhaled deeper and held longer than is tobacco smoke, increasing the lungs' exposure to carcinogens."

Where are you getting this info? So when the cancer journals report that tobacco causes over eighty percent of lung cancer you don't raise your voice, but in order to carry on your anti pot tirade you come up with these fictitious statistics? If pot causes cancer why is it prescribed in ailments? And if it is as bad as tobacco why isn't tobacco banned?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 28, 2012
doorsc

Note, th comment didn't say it caused 50 ta 70 percent of th cancers, it is a chemical analysis that says it contains 50 ta 70 percent more of th carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.

Th other fact is that most people who smoke pot also smoke tobacco, kind of a double whammy fer th lungs.

backinblack isn't carryin in his "tirade" on tobacco because he, like I, knows it's bad fer ya but people do it anyway regardless of th amount of data out thair that says it's bad fer ya.

Another reason why ya probably see cancers frum pot, aside frum th fact that most pot smokers smoke tobacco so which one caused th cancer, is that most people in th US taday don't smoke it. One because it's illegal but most because they can see th evidence of mental degradation themselves.

Thair are also a lot of prescription drugs that can cause cancer that are prescribed ta treat ailments.

Why ain't tobacco banned? Because it's a moneymaker in th form of taxes fer th government an th people makin money off it.

"Fictitious statistics?" Comeon non, you an I both know thair there an ya have probably seen an rejected em. Use yer google search engine, thair easy ta find.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 28, 2012
Go ta google an search

marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons

Oh right, it's all a paranoia an all lies.

Just like them blinkey red lights behind ya that are th cops out ta bust ya. OOPS! Just a fire engine goin by. :)

backinblack
|
June 27, 2012
I have some sort of tech issue going on so sorry for the mixed posts. Continuing with my response to Shelly: From the Mayo Clinic: "Moderate alcohol consumption may provide some health benefits.

It may:

Reduce your risk of developing heart disease

Reduce your risk of dying of a heart attack

Possibly reduce your risk of strokes, particularly ischemic strokes

Lower your risk of gallstones

Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes"

Research can also be found espousing certain benefits of tobacco. So what's a person to make of the contradictory info? Refer to my post about the complexities of alcohols effect on the body which is actually from The Harvard School of Public Health. Take note of a point I've tried making before, much of how things like alcohol, reef, and tobacco affects someone depends on family history/genetics, one size does not fit all.

I think tobacco is bad, period. As for the rest, all things in moderation. Personal responsibility and common sense. Here's one thing which is fact, people live like saints and drop dead at 40 or 50, others smoke & drink yet make it to 80. How does one account for this? Simple, what kills one doesn't necesarily kill an other.

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 27, 2012
As one who was a user I had th fortune ta listen ta this doctor's presentation an was startled at th damage I had done ta my own brain. Hopefully ya will find it as interestin as I did an that will help ya ta change yer denial way of thankin. Note: It don't deal with just pot but tobacco, alcohol an even caffeine.

http://soundwavemeditation.com/Blog/?p=129

In a twelve step program, th first step is ta admit ta yerself that ya got a problem.

backinblack
|
June 27, 2012
doorsc writes: "But pot, which is actually used

for medicinal purposes and does not cause cancer"

The Mayo Clinic writes: "Along with the legal implications, smoking marijuana poses several health risks, including:



* Impairment of thinking, problem-solving skills and memory

* Reduced balance and coordination

* Increased risk of heart attack

* Heightened risk of chronic cough and respiratory infections

* Potential for hallucinations and withdrawal symptoms



Also, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke and has the potential to cause cancer of the lungs and respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke is commonly inhaled deeper and held longer than is tobacco smoke, increasing the lungs' exposure to carcinogens."

Take note of the last sentence, Ornley has mentioned this before and it looks like he was on target.

Shelly writes: "What are the good uses for alcohol and/or cigarettes that are legal now? NONE. OK wine has some good antioxidants etc."

cont.

backinblack
|
June 27, 2012
Given the complexity of alcohol's effects on the body and the complexity of the people who drink it, blanket recommendations about alcohol are out of the question. Because each of us has unique personal and family histories, alcohol offers each person a different spectrum of benefits and risks. Whether or not to drink alcohol, especially for "medicinal purposes," requires careful balancing of these benefits and risks.
backinblack
|
June 27, 2012
doorsc writes: "But pot, which is actually used

for medicinal purposes and does not cause cancer"

The Mayo Clinic writes: "Along with the legal implications, smoking marijuana poses several health risks, including:



* Impairment of thinking, problem-solving skills and memory

* Reduced balance and coordination

* Increased risk of heart attack

* Heightened risk of chronic cough and respiratory infections

* Potential for hallucinations and withdrawal symptoms



Also, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke and has the potential to cause cancer of the lungs and respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke is commonly inhaled deeper and held longer than is tobacco smoke, increasing the lungs' exposure to carcinogens."

Take note of the last sentence, Ornley has mentioned this before and it looks like he was on target.

Shelly writes: "What are the good uses for alcohol and/or cigarettes that are legal now? NONE. OK wine has some good antioxidants etc."

cont.



Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 27, 2012
backinblack

Ya hit th nail on th head an identified th real problem consarnin th state of mind those who use pot are in when they are considerin th passage of law ta legalize it.

"* Impairment of thinking, problem-solving skills and memory"

It was illustrated by a comedy recordin in th late 1960's by comedians, some later became members of Fernwood Tonight, Firesign Theater an The Capitol Steps.

Th album was called "A Child's Garden of Grass." It parodied th smokin of Marijuana an those who use it.

Thair was a routine whair they were talkin about th mental effects in that when yer high ya have delusions of grandeur in thankin yer a da Vinci, Pavarotti or even God, an that because ya were such a powerful thanker ya were destine ta save th world frum itself with yer mental prowess.

It ended th scene with th statement, "You may think you have divine revelation only to find out later it was none too divine."

That epiphany of wit that most pot smokers have is actually preceded by three letters "NIT" formin th word nitwit an is akin ta "Hire a teen while they still know it all."

Yes, it does have mind alterin effects that last a long time after ya quit usin it.

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 27, 2012
An through all of that, regardless of what th States decide, under Federal Law it's still illegal.

So, do we break th law simply because we don't like it or thank it's a good law? Or do we follow th law until it's legally changed?

Ya gotta be careful when ya start ta put yer laws in a food line of a cafeteria whair ya individually choose ta pick those that are yer favorites an ya like while rejectin those ya don't like or don't believe in.

Should th laws on DUI be suspended because some don't like em?

Should traffic speed laws be suspended because some don't like em?

Whair are ya gonna draw th line with laws ya follow an those yer gonna willingly break cus ya don't like or agree with em?

Passin relaxed marijuana laws at th state level doesn't fix th remain problem with it's illegality at th Federal level an therefore it's still against th law.

Tommy Chong of Cheech an Chong fame ran afoul of Federal Law an had ta pay th consequences. Many didn't like it an thought it was wrong. Be that as it may, th law was violated an that's what got him inta trouble.

Bottom line, if he hadn't violated th law he wouldn't have been held accountable fer it.
doorsc
|
June 26, 2012
Shelly I could not have said it better myself. I don't know why people are not as anti alcohol and anti tobacco as they are anti marijuana. People on this blog insisted it was okay for tobacco and alcohol to be legal, but not pot. Where there are corporate pharmaceutical interests at hand, we don't raise our voices even though we know cigarettes cause cancer and alcohol leads to serious death injury and disease. But pot, which is actually used for medicinal purposes and does not cause cancer, is called a drug. What about legal drugs such as anti depressants? Should we ban prosac as well?
Wobbley
|
June 26, 2012
Then the city should allow for a medical marijuana dispensary. It doesn't matter what other people think, if your doctor prescribes it, there should be a legal way to obtain it. After all, WE VOTED FOR IT.

Sending our citizens to Stockton or Oakland to get the MEDICINE that their DOCTOR prescribed is wrong.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 26, 2012
We all know th issue ain't about medical usage, it's about tunin out an turnin on, which is why I believe some in government are supportin makin it legal.

It's easy ta control people's minds if thair zoned out most of th time.

Besides, regardless of what states decide ta do it's still illegal at th federal level an until that's changed, regardless of how ya feel about it or what th states do, it's still illegal.

So, sensibly, are we supposin ta break laws just because we don't agree with em? If so, what other laws are ya apt ta break simply because ya don't belief in em?

An ain't that a form of anarchy whair ya pick an choose th laws ya want ta follow?

Nope, not a good idea no matter how ya slice th cake.
dcose
|
June 26, 2012
It's my dope and I want it now
victor_jm
|
June 23, 2012
I care about humanity, so I don't endorse the legalization of drugs for the sedation of its minds. More than half the medical (medicinal) marijuana users are charlatans of the mind.

Would any sane parent wish the smoking of marijuana upon her child?

I don't.

Philosophical arguments about this issue seem to be about defending one's right to choose rather than one's right to impose restriction upon another.

shelly13
|
June 26, 2012
First let me say "no" I don't want my kids smoking it or doing anything to alter their minds/body unless prescribed by a doctor. Even then I would really check into what our legal pill pushers are giving them to take. I don't want them to smoke cigarettes or drink either. In fact alcohol is worse. So I guess I would rather them be a pothead than a drunk.

There are many good uses for marijuana. What are the good uses for alcohol and/or cigarettes that are legal now? NONE. OK wine has some good antioxidants etc.

Also many great minds have admitted to doing acid. Steve Jobs "LSD was one of the three most significant events in my life." also Bill Gates, Dr. Andrew Weil, Dan Rather, etc. Some illegal drugs have their uses and should be legalized while some of our legal pharmaceutical drugs that our government/pharmaceutical companies are shoving down our throats should be taken off the market.

This country is going down the crapper each day. Lets let people who are sick use marijuana to make them better and focus on what is really ailing this country.

RedHotChilliPeppers
|
June 26, 2012
Nearly everyone gets sick. How can we focus on what is ailing the country if we are all stoned ..er sorry, self medicated.

The prez said to help the econmy, he wanted to let gramma take a pill, not roll her own.

Whatever happened to garlic balm?
victor_jm
|
June 28, 2012
A mature soul desires clarity of mind.

Shelly says this: “So I guess I would rather them [her children] be a pothead than a drunk.”

Really? Does your choice have to be one or the other? Why must it be either? Why use this illogic in your argument in favor of marijuana use? Furthermore, why compare marijuana with alcohol when arguing the detriments of either? This debate isn’t about tit for tat.

Also, Shelly, yes, many “great minds [extraordinary, I prefer]” have used mind-altering drugs, but most of them did so as immature, callow souls—and don’t suppose the use of these drugs as the genesis of their thoughtfulness and creativity. Extraordinary minds don’t elect a lifetime of drug use as a viable path for cognitive fecundity. Still, let’s not include artists in this argument because their “supposed greatness” often lies with a puerile following.

What does this mean? Steve Jobs claims the use of LSD as “one of three most significant events in my life”? Why did he believe this? Do you suppose he was dropping acid all his life? What is the context of this assertion? Did he have an epiphany while on LSD? Do you suppose any epiphany someone might have could be experien
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
June 22, 2012
If the president was afraid to inhale the stuff. That is why it is a federal offense. If the president was doing it, then it might be legal. For example, the president may have a glass of wine with his organically grown green beans.

But since the governer probably does it...
rock-on
|
June 22, 2012
In my opinion, Jon Mendelson has done an EXCELLENT job capturing & summarizing this argument as a whole. It’s refreshing to see that quality journalism still exists!

Though we finally have a solution for the City of Tracy, I still believe the BIG PICTURE SOLUTION is to legalize, regulate & tax marijuana on the Federal Level. THAT, is a different fight - and one I would certainly vote for (even though I don’t smoke the stuff).

~ ROCK ON!!!!
Sneaky
|
June 22, 2012
ditto
newtotracy
|
June 24, 2012
well said rock-on...looks like the council meeting is replayed on channel 26 tomorrow at 2...sounds like must see tv to me! ;-)
victor_jm
|
June 22, 2012
Personally, I think marijuana should be legalized across the country and its cultivation and distribution regulated along the lines of alcohol. But that’s a different column.
Bird_Man
|
June 22, 2012
I am hitting a horse that has long since gasped its last breath but... (and without regard for my personal opinion on the subject)

Federal laws dictate the legality of pot, weed, cannabis, or whatever you want to call it.

We as a state and now city waste time discussing what will be legal or illegal with respect to drugs, or as in this case, pot. Time is money. Literally.

Until resources are spent on busting the chops of those that can make changes we will only spin our proverbial wheels.

My grandmother would have said that talking about it at the city and state level would be akin to rocking in a rocking chair... It is perhaps soothing or fun but you don't get anywhere.

Good Lord I miss that little old lady.
ertion
|
June 23, 2012
Which of the enumerated powers in the US Constitution enables the Federals to restrict these substances? Hint: you won't find it because that power was never granted.

This and many other usurped powers belong exclusively to the states. Now, many states, including California, have asserted their primacy in this regard by passing Medicinal Marijuana laws, despite the Federals laws to the contrary.

Clearly, they don't agree with you, Bird_man, and they DO have constitutional standing to do what they're doing. Consequently, the Federals are treading very carefully in this area in those states who have decriminalized marijuana, and legalized it for medicinal purposes.

Our communities, our state, can no longer afford to play the drug war game where such huge numbers of people are incarcerated that they cannot be properly fed, housed, or cared for medically. (That's why the US Supreme Court has ordered California to release tens of thousands of them.) This game is over, Bird_man. Nobody has told the cops yet, though.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 22, 2012
Just thankin of history past.

Durin th time of prohibition drinkin alcohol was a problem.

Moonshiners were all over th place plyin thair knowledge ta support thair own needs, makin a tidy profit fer themselves an generally causin more problems fer th community because of th type of activity associated with drinkin alcohol.

Prohibition came along, was passed an fer a brief period of time alcohol consumption, an th crime associated with it, decreased.

Seein a profit ta be made th criminal element engaged with moonshiners an set up a network of production, transportation, supply an consumption. Territories where by individuals in th criminal element were set up so they could make thair profits.

Th problems associated with th consumption of alcohol, socially, surfaced again an crime relational ta th criminal element increased. Law enforcement, not derivin any monetary reimbursement ta fight crime, in many cases, either turned it's head or became tools of th criminal element in exchange fer money an political power.

Th laws on prohibition were repealed but alcohol was then taxed, generatin a revenue stream ta fight th crime problem. Th moonshiners an criminal elements

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
June 22, 2012
were in a position ta simply continue th line of business already established an pay taxes. If they got out of line an when they were arrested an prosecuted before prohibition was repealed, it was over taxes an not th other crimes of murder an terrorism they foisted on society.

Now alcohol was legal again. People started drinkin legally again an, as one would suppose th problems associated with drinkin came forth again.

Alcoholism became a problem once again.

Law enforcement attempted ta quell th problem, at least on th highways, but it's apparent those efforts didn't really produce th desired results as we still have many alcohol related deaths on our highways taday an th stigma associated with alcoholism, which is a social problem, still destroys families.

Now we are on th cusp of doin th very same thang fer virtually th same reasons as we did concarnin alchol.

Th question is, is this goin ta make thangs better or end up backfirin on us th way it has done with alcohol?

But hey, at least it will be legal right? Who really cares about th lives it will ruin?


We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.