Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

If Proposition 19 passes, what does it mean for Lodi, Galt?

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, October 30, 2010 12:00 am | Updated: 6:12 am, Sat Oct 30, 2010.

If marijuana is legalized on Tuesday, don't expect the Lodi Police Department to suddenly have a lot more time.

A review by the News-Sentinel found that the number of marijuana arrests in Lodi is far below the state average. In 2008, the most recent year that data is available, a paltry 1.5 percent of all arrests in Lodi were marijuana-related, according to the state attorney general's office. By comparison, statewide marijuana-related offenses accounted for five percent of all arrests. Overall, there were only 15 felony marijuana arrests in Lodi in 2008.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

46 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:38 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel stated...I am glad to be ridden of your false logic. As for insinuating that I am dishonest--go *bleep* yourself sideways...

    I can imagine you would be glad to paint false rosy pictures about drug legalization without opposition... As far as insinuating you are dishonest, that is not true… I was not insinuating… I was in my opinion, boldly saying it clearly,.
    If you are not dishonest, in my opinion, you are incredibly misinformed and misguided.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:05 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Joshua Hutchison posted at 4:19 pm ...Darrell has invoked Hitler as a metaphor to demonstrate how Marijuana will mercilessly vanquish all of it's users...

    I did no such thing... Joshua... clearly you need to read what I said better. when someone justifies a hideous action of legalizing all drugs if for the” general welfare of the people", and sincerely means it, the statement matches the absurdity of the concept... Rarely is a Hitler comparison appropriate

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:01 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Rarely is a Hitler comparison appropriate... but when someone justifies a hideous action of legalizing all drugs if for the” general welfare of the people", and sincerely means it, the statement matches the absurdity of the concept.
    At the airport. Couldn't avoid this one last correction before the flight.
    Manuel, I hope someday when you become an adult, you forgive yourself.
    I wish you well, but not your juvenile ideals. Do yourself a favor, stop reading
    your CBO reports and get experience so you can add some reality to your statements.
    You also need to learn how to articulate and organize your thoughts as well as substantiate your points with facts, not fantasy.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 6:07 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    I can't believe I missed the Hitler remark...

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 6:05 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    "Manuel stated ...I have told you 5 times that I will not cultivate nor profit from this...
    Yes, you have consistantly lied 5 times... "

    You charge that I am lying about ever plotting to cultivate or profit from the cultivation of marijuana, without verification.

    The two statements you quoted are not exclusive. Legalize the substance does not have the same meaning as "legalize every substance". Note, in the same paragraph: "it's just that I currently consider some materials to be too dangerous to release to the public"

    I am glad to be ridden of your false logic. As for insinuating that I am dishonest--go *bleep* yourself sideways.

     
  • Joshua Hutchison posted at 4:19 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Joshua Hutchison Posts: 57

    Darrell has invoked Hitler as a metaphor to demonstrate how Marijuana will mercilessly vanquish all of it's users. I have previously assumed Hitler metaphors were reserved for those cases when you had absolutely no good argument against something other than your own personal preference. I often invoke Hitler/Nazi's to refer to the pricing sceme which makes nonfat milk cheaper than whole milk, or organic vegetables more expensive than their industrial counterparts. example: "Those National Socialist's keep pricing the Organic Brocolli much higher than the other stuff, this is like Hitler poisoning the Jewish People with non-organic Brocolli ! "
    This argument works for just about everything. It requires no set-up due to the ubiquity of the name of the Fuhrer. This kind of argument also absolves you of having to make any meaningful substantiation of your claims. Hitler. I win. You are Hitler. I win. You think it is better to legalize a substance than fight a prohibition which is doing more harm than good. You are Hitler. I win.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:11 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel stated ...I have told you 5 times that I will not cultivate nor profit from this...
    Yes, you have consistantly lied 5 times...

    what you said earlier... I am potentially open, provided that we adopt a program that usually is implemented in Europe: legalize the substance, but if caught using the substance, require counseling, and provide addiction treatment centers

    what you say now...No, legalize CERTAIN narcotics provided that programs are in place to maintain the general welfare of the people...
    Glad to see you amend your first lie with your second one.

    I said you could have the last word, but what I meant was... last word that had some truth to it.... Since it is the end of the day... Im off... so now you can lie to your hearts content without interuption...


     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 3:54 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Love to make money? I have told you 5 times that I will not cultivate nor profit from this.

    "Legalize all drugs if it is for the general welfare of people."

    No, legalize certain narcotics provided that programs are in place to maintain the general welfare of the people. I am not surprised by your poor approach to comprehending my statements, it seems to be your trait.

    "Manuel... for now on, you can have the last word... no more blogs for me as I have had my say... Im off to Asia"

    I'm sorry, aren't you gone yet?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:03 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel states...and like the old man that you are, you are stuck in your ways.

    Coming from you, old age sounds better and better... you are right about me being stuck in my ways. I choose humanity and love over money and greed.... I will never be able to cross the line and change into someone like you... Barbarous to me is supporting legalization of all drugs for the" general welfare of the people".

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:53 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Evil...?? No... Not my word... selfish, greedy, at the expense of others... that’s all. No conspiracy at all... your fantasy, not mine... I simply think you and Soros love to make money... no matter how you make it…and of course, how kind and compassionate of you. Legalize all drugs if it is for the general welfare of people. Sounds like the same reasoning Hitler used to exterminate Jewish people... for the betterment of the people as a whole, according to him.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 9:09 am on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Darrell, I stated that I was reluctant but potentially open to legalizing all substances provided that the general welfare of the people was the primary function of a policy that sought to regulate the cultivation and consumption of the substances. In your case, there is no discussion to be had, you've made up your mind, and like the old man that you are, you are stuck in your ways. I however am willing to consider many things provided that credible evidence can be presented to provide a persuasive justification for a proposition. The remainder of your post seems to sum up as a "George Soros is evil" conspiracy theory...which doesn't surprise me in the least.

    Your comments to Fred are most peculiar. You advocate that we incarcerate individuals that carry prohibited substances,and threaten them with execution. How abhorrent! 'Let's execute the individual for fear that he harms himself through his own actions'....have fun living with your barbarous 'sanity'.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:52 am on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel... for now on, you can have the last word... no more blogs for me as I have had my say... Im off to Asia where sanity is in full display.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:46 am on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    FredFlintstone posted at 7:26...Let's be clear as to the economic insentives surrounding prohibited substances. Marijuana has a 1,000 times mark up due to prohibition..

    Fred, thank you for exposing Manuel for the person he is… you on the other hand, are truly *****. You state that Prohibition has failed to stop drug use and availability, as the reason to legalize... to me, I agree that in the USA, it has failed... however; I can think of two countries that it has not failed. In fact, it works very well... so maybe we should use their model as a solution instead of your solution. Two years ago, I was flying to Singapore and Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Before landing, a warning announcement came on the loud speaker. It advised all passengers, if they had any substance that was not clearly prescribed by a physician, to make sure you did not leave the plane in possession of drugs. They informed each person that if the authorities at the airport found anything in your possession, that you would be immediately arrested, jailed, and prosecuted, and within 6 months executed. Yes... just for possession, execution. No ACLU or lawyer to save you. So Fred, if you think it doesn’t work well, I invite you to enter Singapore or Malaysia with drugs in your possession and see what happens. Put your actions where your mouth is. I think the world would be a better place if you did.

    By the way, anyone can comfortably walk around at night, even 2:am, and feel safe in Singapore. It’s the best family orientated and children safe place I have ever been. They are doing something right. I doubt if you will ever see it for yourself.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:56 am on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Manuel...The question is unworthy of an answer primarily because the legalization will not inherently harm any individual....and ...Manuel: I challenge you to consider legalizing all drugs. Prohibition has failed to stop drug use and availability. Have you checked out L.E.A.P... then The primary concern I had, was the effect it has on the body...I am potentially open, provided that we adopt a program that usually is implemented in Europe: legalize the substance...

    Thank you for finally making my point for me. You are exhibit “A”, of a George Soros trained idiot or tool for his cause that he and others like him have been attempting for years.
    George Soros and his billions are behind every legal effort world wide to legalize all drugs. He has been at it for decades. If you read his philosophy, he believes in incrementalism in all aspects of politics, economics and all things that lead to his ultimate goal, which is to be the world’s most wealthy man. He sees complete drug legalization and control of its profits as the end game. He first promoted medical Marijuana as a tool to promote just reasons to accept this type of drug as positive. Step two, legalize this drug for general acceptance. Promote thinking in people like you and Fred who buy into the idea. Just today you finally admitted the obvious, that you are open to legalizing all drugs, if the circumstance is right… It’s the point I was making all along. So when you say, legalization will not inherently harm any individual, you display your ignorance or if not ignorant, your willingness to hurt others for selfish reasons.
    George Soros would be very happy that his plan works well with gullible people like you. Prop 19 is part of incrementalism that I am referring to. Imagine, 5 years from now, when the price of this drug is very low, highly promoted and accepted as normal. It’s so obvious that you pawn or a player in the big picture... Manuel, in my opinion, you are a sad example of what a human being should be.

    Soros Management Fund, Open Society Institute … George Soros, Chairman.

    Included is a link which illustrates the legislation he has influenced …http://www.nationalfamilies.org/guide/rankings_dependence.html

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 10:44 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    "Manuel: I challenge you to consider legalizing all drugs."

    It took me quite a bit of thinking to support Prop 19. The primary concern I had, was the effect it has on the body. I spent days looking for research notes and studies that indicated an excessive long term impairment resulting from consumption, and compared the results with the long term effects of alcohol and tobacco use(effect projections and analysis are fun to look at.). I finally came to the conclusion that the substance was less harmful than the legal substances we have in abundance, and went for the legalization of this substance.

    I can see your argument, that prohibition generally is an ineffective method of substance control, given that the value of the substance increases as it gains the status of a forbidden material, it's just that I currently consider some materials to be too dangerous to release to the public. I am potentially open, provided that we adopt a program that usually is implemented in Europe: legalize the substance, but if caught using the substance, require counseling, and provide addiction treatment centers.

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 9:27 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Fred, I think it would be a close call between the government or the mob. ;-)

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 7:20 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    The question is unworthy of an answer primarily because the legalization will not inherently harm any individual. It was you, who said a couple of weeks ago, that you do not know what may happen; it may be good or it may be bad. You seem to have moved from that statement to one claiming that Prop 19 will be harmful to other individuals. I support the legalization of a substance that is less harmful than otherwise legal substances, for the purpose of moderate recreational use. I am not surprised that again, you ignored my question which is not tongue in cheek or inferred: In what sense are Police Chiefs and Sheriffs experts on cost projections?

    Your only rebuttal to Prop 19 is that it is moving to fast; this is sufficient to vote it down? I pointed out in every instance, the citation of the legal text that deals with the scenario Lt. Piombo and other members of the opposition propose as detrimental were Prop 19 to pass, and in each instance, the claims of harm were without merit.

    Prop 19 does allow the individual to cultivate marijuana in their residence(with the approval of the owner if the property is rental), for the purpose of personal use, not sale. This is not an issue of enforcement as Prop 19 only allows the city governments to license commercial growers and establishments that allow for the consumption on premises, set regulations that protect local property, levy special taxes on the cultivation, production or distribution of marijuana, and the exposure to marijuana advertising. The cities have no ability to restrict individuals from consuming in their own home or in the homes of others(with their consent) because the modifications to the health and safety code are statewide and take precedence over local law(including the clauses that prohibit the possession of marijuana on school grounds or consumption of marijuana in public places, on public property, or in front of minors).

    Prop 19 essentially does what you want in some sense. Individuals are free to cultivate and consume without the authority to sell the substance. There is no problem in allowing local governments to license the commercial entities that seek to grow it on mass for the purpose of distribution. It is you the must justify your claim that the commercialization of a substance is what will lead to harm rather than the mere legalization of individual cultivation.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:26 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:15… Just to be clear Darrell, Are you saying you believe Alcohol should be illegal as well?

    I am saying that I do not want people to suffer. I do not like all the destruction, death, heart ache, turmoil, crime, and all other disasters that result from substance abuse of any kind. I see prop 19 as adding one more nail in the coffin. I think prop 19 is a disaster and will result in many unanticipated events that people will regret. I think there should be a better way to accomplish the intentions of what you and others( except Manuel) want from passing prop 19… prop 19 is one giant mistake.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:18 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Kevin Paglia posted at 2:14 ...Darrell; you keep saying I want to smoke Pot...

    Kevin, I apologize as your blog shows sincerity. I made that assumption because you consistently showed support for the passing prop 19 by justifying it because you felt pot was not as problematic as alcohol. I sincerely regret making that assumption about you. I was so wrong to do that… I also love your wit and humor in your blog where you listed things that you have No desire to do yourself.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:09 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel Martinez posted ... As to your question, it is tongue in cheek and unworthy of an answer...
    Obviously, you still have no ability to comprehend. This was not tongue and cheek... I want to know in the sincerest of ways, why do you so eagerly support things that hurt people?

    if you want to legalize pot, I would join you in some circumstances. All the points you made in your blog are absurd for justifying voting for Prop 19. .. Let’s take this point by point...
    01. Prohibition has not worked ... that is not related to prop 19… if you legalized pot where each person could grow their own for personal use… not sale.. then the argument for “prohibition did not work” evaporates as a reason to vote for prop 19.
    02. there is no justification for the criminalization of a substance that is less dangerous and addictive as alcohol… in your fantasy world, maybe, but even if I concede that point, if you legalized pot where each person could grow their own without fear of being arrested, ( if they do not sell it), then again, there is no reason to vote for prop 19.
    03. Our local communities stand to benefit from a new market that requires the employment of cultivators processors and distributors… this is the only point you have ever made that has some truth. However, prop 19 goes far beyond this and allows each city to determine if they will enforce the law or not, will allow each city to determine where people can publically use pot… prop 19 needs to be voted down. This is too far too fast. It should be in stages. First, legalize pot for personal use only. Decriminalize it under limited circumstances. Gain experience and knowledge first before each city can make profit from drugs.

    Again… why are you in such a hurry to support something that is likely to hurt people… You may think it is not worthy an answer… but that defines your character.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 2:49 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    This will have been the 4th time that I have stated that I have no intention of cultivating marijuana, nor will I be investing in the production thereof. Like Kevin, I seek to legalize this specific substance(not all narcotics as Darrell loves to insinuate) because a.) prohibition has not worked b.) there is no justification for the criminalization of a substance that is less dangerous and addictive as alcohol. c.) our local communities stand to benefit from a new market that requires the employment of cultivators processors and distributors. I am tired of having to repeat this, and I say that it is absolutely pathetic that Darrell has free reign to imply that because some seek to legalize a substance that they seek to abuse it or profit from it. Like Kevin I conclude the following: "Those markets will never open up as long as people hear pot and react as you do."

    As to your question, it is tongue in cheek and unworthy of an answer, notwithstanding your silence about the question I posited to you: What makes Police Chiefs and Sheriffs experts on cost projections?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:15 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2092

    Just to be clear Darrell, Are you saying you believe Alcohol should be illegal as well?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:14 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2092

    Darrell, you keep saying I want to smoke Pot. Please show where I say I want it? I'm all for many things I will never participate in. Like tofu Bacon there are many things that I believe people should be able to participate in but have NO desire to partake in myself.

    In case that is unclear here is a partial list of things I think people should be able to do that I have NO desire to do myself:

    Fight clubs
    Tofu anything
    rooting for the Raiders
    hunting
    Double expresso mocha lattes
    Owning monkeys
    Sending signals back to the mother ship
    Smoke homegrown
    Drink home brewed alcohol
    go to political conventions
    leave their money to their pet
    Use visa to pay Mastercard
    Watch Adam Sandler movies
    Eat junk food all day long

    Just because I believe that some things should be legal doesn't mean I want to do them. I have stated (several times) the main reason I favor Prop 19 is for the industrial possibilities cannabis has in various markets. Those markets will never open up as long as people hear pot and react as you do.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:13 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel stated... Your rebuke is completely preposterous..

    I am thankful you think it is... I think so little of what you think that I would be concerned if you agreed with me. You mischaracterize my statements so often; twist my words around to say something that was not my intent. I originally thought you were intentionally doing this, but now I think you simply have no ability to comprehend the spirit and intension behind what I state. For example, your interpretation of what I said was “It has never happened here, therefore, I win”… In reality, all I was saying is that you cannot use other countries experiences and evidence as to what would happen here. I am not trying to win anything… That particular justification is of no value or substance. You on the other hand, think other countries experiences have value to guess what might happen here.
    You are so desperate to legalize drugs that you are not thinking clearly. May I ask, how many sq feet of pot will you be growing after Tuesday? If you will not be growing any, how much money will you be investing in making drug profits?

    And Ill ask for the third time, why do you so eagerly support things that hurt people?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:43 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Kevin stated...Let's throw out one more question for you; Why do you think pot is worse for you than alcohol

    Kevin, I confused again... where I have ever stated I think alcohol should be legal... if you sponsor a bill that bans alcohol, be glad to sign it.
    I think people who want drugs legalized use alcohol as rationalization of legalizing drugs. I think it is silly to say... alcohol is legal; pot is less harmful than alcohol, so let’s legalize pot. I think if people were really concerned about the bad results alcohol brings, they would work to make alcohol illegal as well as pot.

    But again, my argument is not your argument. You want to smoke pot... I have no problem or concern if you do. It’s your body and you should decide if you want to harm it. My argument is with this particular proposition and the liberties and power it gives cities. If you knocked on my door with a proposition that legalized personal growth of pot of one once, I might sign it… but I do not like this bill.
    As far as why it is a bad idea for local governments to set standards for their community, I think it makes it very easy for corruption to take place. When you have 9 people on a city council and all it takes is 5 of the 9 to collaborate to make policy, its obvious how easy it would be to do things that effect that city as well as surrounding cities.
    San Francisco has demonstrated it’s power to effect other cities when the city council made an ordinance that prohibited any organization that did business with the city had to insure all domestic partners in their health plan or risk losing business. It is not a stretch to assume that within 20 years, San Francisco could develop ordinances that other cities may have to endur.

    So Kevin, what would be wrong with having a bill

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:06 pm on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2092

    Darrell, maybe it is the Hydrocodone (relax, it's prescribed, I'm recovering from surgery) but I fail to understand why it is faulty to allow local governments to set standards. It is not unheard of for local governments to set codes for what businesses are allowed, where and how many. I once lived in a twin city (Eugene/Springfield) where a specific pesticide ingredient was banned in one but allowed in the other.

    Please explain WHY it is a bad idea for local governments to set standards for their community. You cited the possibility of San Fran becoming a drug destination but why do you think it is a BAD idea over Napa Valley being it's own drug destination?

    Let's throw out one more question for you; Why do you think pot is worse for you than alcohol? All the numbers I've read say alcohol is far worse than pot. For your arguments to be balanced then you must be against alcohol as well.

    Personally I've seen far more lives destroyed by alcohol than pot. I think BOTH are stupid to do but will admit to drinking, I average a four-pack of wine coolers a year. But NOT when I'm taking Hydrocodone.

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 11:56 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    Great blog, Fred.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 11:39 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Now, this debate I like. Very good points made by all and the fresh contributions made by FredFlintstone are very well articulated. Alcohol is more addictive and deadly than marijuana will ever be and law enforcement should concentrate on this fact here in Lodi with all the wineries and their tasting rooms that have impaired drivers on the roads constantly in this area. Just because you are not a .08 doesn't mean you can't be cited for driving impaired or negligent driving. The same will hold true for any drug or alcohol user while operating a motor vehicle, or even one high on legal meds, which all the good old boys, council and management are also suspected of not only using for medicinal purposes, but abusing it also. Why aren't our city fathers, firemen and police officers, city employees, department heads and all management employees given a drug and alcohol screening at lleast annually? Quarterly would be preferred, with so much alcohol and drug abuse rampant just in the city of Lodi alone? Right now, for example, there's a huge flood of crystal meth and heroin, black tar mainly, in Lodi and your floundering newspaper just ignores the problem and keeps it swept under the rug. LPD should have an officer liason that is required to keep the public awareness through community forums and press releases at least once a month, if not weekly. These are issues that need to be addressed rather than worrying whether the voters want to legalize marijuana and worrying about losing some of their federal grant money that is wasted on programs like D.A.R.E and sending uniformed officers to elementary schools to talk to 5th and 6th graders about joining gangs when they are already throwing gang signs as early as the 3rd grade. By the 5th grade they're already well schooled. Why not some kind of gang intervention programs instead?

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 10:57 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    "Manuel… that is the lamest of all lame points you have ever made… Each country has different variables"

    Your rebuke is completely preposterous. You demanded that I consider what happens when a particular substance is legalized, and then attempt to state that there has never been a successful legalization of the product. When one refutes the argument with the noted reality that other countries have legalized marijuana, you move the goal posts once again, in order to state "It has never happened here, therefore, I win.".

    When Kevin pointed out that the substance was legal at one time, you then moved the goal post to say that it is irrelevant in a most peculiar way: "I have no recollection of ever having the benefit of knowing from you that this drug was ever legal. However, if it was, so what. It has no relevance. Years ago, it was legal to own slaves… so does that mean we should bring back slavery?"

    That is your rebuttal? We used to have slaves, and now we don't, so it is okay to ignore the period where marijuana was legal? What is your logic?! It is completely relevant because you made the statement that we don't know what happens in a society that forgoes the criminalization of a substance, in our case, a period is cited in which it was perfectly legal, and no excessive harm came to the society that allowed the use of the substance. Your reference to slavery however, is irrelevant; if it was a discussion on the effects of slavery prior to and post abolition, than it would be relevant. Instead, you decided to engage in a game to state "Slavery was legal, so was marijuana, if slavery is illegal, I have no problem with marijuana being illegal".

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:36 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Fred stated...This is not poorly written or bad law. This law gives counties the right to govern themselves rather than forcing a state law on counties that would rather opt out. In this way - like with alcohol - we can have dry counties

    Your opinion that this is not bad law does not hold much water since you do not understand how the law works in the first place. When you state that this law gives counties the right to govern themselves, that is factually in correct. It gives each city the power. In Lodi, there has been controversy and accusations that the current city council officials are corrupt and incompetent. Doug , in our own blogs, consistently makes that case as well as many others. So now, if prop 19 passes, Lodi’s city council will have the legal authority to create city ordinances that will determine where, when and how pot is sold and consumed. I do not think city councils should have that kind of power. The city can also generate tax revenue, making it an economic incentive to sell as much pot as it possibly can. Yes, this is very bad law.

    In addition, you are not very bright if you think I was comparing smoking a joint to slavery. I was giving one example of something bad that was at one time legal, but thankfully, is now illegal. Kevin was making a silly argument based on something that happened 100 years ago. Obviously, slavery is so much more hideous than smoking pot, it is not comparable. That is so obvious that no one needs to even comment about that.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:14 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Joanne Bobin posted at 3:56 ...Mr. Paglia asked: "Can you explain why you are in favor of alcohol...?"
    I think it is quite evident from the many incoherent rants posted on these blogs by Mr. Baumbach...no explanation necessary!

    Joanne, I am not religious, but in this case, I forgive you. I think you must not like yourself very much.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:02 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    • Doug stated…Why would any physician here in the Lodi/Stockton area be prescribing any type of weight loss medications to anyone less than 50 pounds overweight? Those and the addictive alcohol peddlers should be the main worry of any law officer, shouldn't they?

    Doug, you make a good point. I think RX drugs are over prescribed and far too many people use them instead of dealing with the root cause of the problem. I rarely drink( maybe 3 times per year), do not smoke, dislike taking RX drugs with a passion, and have never tried illegal drugs… not because I’m right leaning, but because I am afraid that these things will hurt me more than help. I think it is up to each person. I also understand the harm, sadness, and destruction that alcohol brings. My father was an angry drunk who made life miserable in our family. He never took drugs but was still destructive. So I understand why people who compare alcohol to drugs, and make the statements you do Doug, but to me, I cannot imagine anyone who has suffered from the results of alcohol, supporting the passage of proposition 19. I had two good friends in high school that during the 60’s, smoked marijuana about 3 or 4 times per week. By the time we graduated, they had become different people and I lost them as friends… I see nothing good in this except for medical reasons, for example, people with cancer using this drug.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:47 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Kevin, I’m getting old (57) and cannot remember things as well. I have no recollection of ever having the benefit of knowing from you that this drug was ever legal. However, if it was, so what. It has no relevance. Years ago, it was legal to own slaves… so does that mean we should bring back slavery? There are many things that used to be legal that are now illegal, that has nothing to do with the merit of prop 19 and if it is “the law”, or an appropriate way to make this drug legal.

    I’m in favor of letting you or anyone else smoke it up and possible harm yourself; if that is what you want to do. But this law goes far beyond that. I object to this particular proposition. If this law did not let cities set ordinances and control taxation and enforcement, I might be for this proposition. If this bill only let you and who ever wanted to grow their own in their house, I might vote for this… so all these arguments about booze is bad… or freedom to do what you want... is off point and irrelevant to my argument.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:30 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    • Manuel Martinez posted at 3:32… Other countries have legalized marijuana, this is not the first time in global history that this has been done.

    Manuel… that is the lamest of all lame points you have ever made… Each country has different variables, cultures and laws that help its society work. To say that “other countries have done it... so there…with a “I win…you lose” attitude, is childish and thoughtless. Your stature is diminishing by the second… its getting to the point that it is pointless to respond to someone that makes such weak silly arguments.

    I have to ask again, why do you so eagerly support things that hurt people. You are one selfish person in my opinion.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:19 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Fredlfintstone stated...There is enormous pressure for police officers to support prohibition - even when they see its futility first hand. Police departments get big bucks from the federal government to fund narcotics units

    Thank you for your constructive comments that to me rings true... however, my position has little to do with prohibition or enforcing it. My position is that prop 19 is a bad law. If this drug is to be legal, this is the wrong way to do it. This particular proposition is highly flawed and leaves too much power in the hands of city councils of each city to implement and enforce compliance with city ordinances. San Francisco, which is already an international destination, is likely to make its city a haven for party goers like Denmark.
    Why do you think the author of the bill avoided state wide continuity like the liquor industry? Its because he knew various cities would want to take it as far as possible without interference which is why is this bad law. I think there are so many pot heads that want this legal no matter how bad the law is that they will vote for this bill. In addition, there are many wealthy people like George Soros, who openly support legalization of all drugs, for the reason of making money legally in the drug business. George Soros is licking his chops and drooling over the prospects of investing millions or maybe billions in this so that he can make as much profit as possible.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 7:27 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Mr. Pike, manyof those pot smokers you mention that are seemingly against prop 19 are probably against the legalization for fear of losing their own valuable customers to some actually good state regulated pot at half the price they're selling it for to either support their own habit or to make a nice living.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 7:23 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    Kevin, were it not for the pill pushing medical profession needing to line the pockets of these pharmaceutical labs, and their own while doing so, how would you expect to see all these svelte gob's, especially the males with the pure white false teeth, sunbooth tan, dyed hairdoes and beards and 28" waistlines, wineglass in hand, appear in general public? Why would any physician here in the Lodi/Stockton area be prescribing any type of weight loss medications to anyone less than 50 pounds overweight? Those and the addictive alcohol peddlers should be the main worry of any law officer, shouldn't they? Especially the addictive qualities of alcohol, which is perfectly legal, and along with any addictive prescription drug, can be procured by even the youngest child from their own household liqour or medicine cabinet when mommy and daddy are either gone, looking the other way or passed out from their own indulgences.

     
  • Robert Pike posted at 5:42 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Robert Pike Posts: 1

    What the media has overlooked is that many pot-smokers are AGAINST Prop 19, for several reasons . It would take too long to list them all here, but a website that covers it quite thoroughly is http://no-on19.com (Marijuana Users Against Prop 19).

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 4:18 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2092

    There have been more deaths due to diet pills over the past year than to pot, why aren't they being outlawed? oh yeah, billions of dollars to be made. I'm sure that is the Pharm. companies could find a way to demonize salads, they would.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:56 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Paglia asked: "Can you explain why you are in favor of alcohol...?"

    I think it is quite evident from the many incoherent rants posted on these blogs by Mr. Baumbach...no explanation necessary!

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 3:38 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2092

    Darrell, I corrected you on this a while ago i thought. This drug WAS legal until the early 1900's. In Cal. until around 1908. Nationally until 1938.

    Can you explain why you are in favor of alcohol which leads to so many deaths a year but against a drug which leads to significantly fewer? http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 3:32 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Other countries have legalized marijuana, this is not the first time in global history that this has been done.

    I again ask the question, in what manner are police chiefs and sheriffs experts on cost projections?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:04 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel, please explain how all these law enforcement officials are wrong about prop 19...
    As far as your question... since this has never been law making this drug legal and the effects of it,there are no experts. For now, we should rely on people who are professional law enforcement officers to guide us....

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 12:50 pm on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    They're police chiefs and sheriffs...explain to me how they are the experts on potential revenue from a change of policy.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:48 am on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    The proposition itself is not very clearly thought-out," Moore said.

    "There are too many unknown factors," Benincasa said. "How are the cities going to do it? Is it really going to generate this money? In my opinion, I don't think so

    On my, according to Mr Martinez, Sherrif Moore and Benincasa are idiots... as well as nearly 100 current and former sheriffs and police chiefs who have publicly opposed the measure.. yes, everyone but Manuel Martinez is wrong...right Manuel.. after all, you have that famous CBO reports and various studies that tell you so.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 11:39 am on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    It means many people in this area will be partaking in a mellow high that won't leave their breath smelling like a brewery, distillery or winery and this legalization will surely have an adverse effect on the wine sipping and sales across California. If Proposition 19 does indeed pass, those hard alcohol bars will be competing with "pleasure" salons", possibly. Maybe those winegrape growers that are being pushed out or bypassed by the good old boys system like the Lodi Winegrape Commission headed by Mr. Mark Chandler and small and large vineyards owned nearly everywhere by the well connected Lange family there is acreage and, of course, water from the dysfunctional North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, should rethink their crops if Proposition 19 passes and apply for permits to grow marijuana and getting their fair share of water rights instead of the predominant few that have benefitted by the lack of NSJWCD to further build the infrastructure to supply them and squandering funds on attorneys' fees and business weekends and meetings at watering holes like yhe Wine&Roses and country club.

     
City of Lodi Leaf Pickup Schedule

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

What was the biggest local story of 2014?

It has been an eventful year in Lodi, from the antics of a wild turkey named Tom Kettleman to the announced closure of the General Mills plant. What do you see as the biggest story of the year?

Total Votes: 221

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists