Claycord – Talk About Local Politics

May 25, 2018 19:00 pm · 80 comments

voted1

This special post is “Talk About LOCAL Politics”.

Please use this post to talk about LOCAL politics, and keep state and national politics out of this thread.

Thank you, and be kind to each other.

Please Note: Users who use multiple names will be deleted. Please choose a name so others can easily chat with you. Users must provide a name in the ‘name field’, please do not use the ‘@’ symbol in the name field.

Nunya May 25, 2018 at 7:11 PM

Oh Baby!

#PleaseGodNoMoreDemocrats

Dorothy May 25, 2018 at 8:07 PM

The slick mailers are coming in fast and furious now. Recycled as fast as they come.

KindnessNoJudging May 25, 2018 at 9:13 PM

Thank you to all the men and women who serve our country.

Cowellian May 25, 2018 at 9:31 PM

I share your sentiment, but this isn’t the weekend for that.

Antler May 26, 2018 at 8:33 AM

Thank you, Cowellian!
Folks, Memorial Day is in honor of those men and women who have lost their lives in combat while serving in the United States armed forces. (There are OTHER special holidays for veterans, police and fire officers, etc…… Cowellian’s well-taken point.)

Cowellian May 26, 2018 at 9:52 AM

I hope I did not sound harsh, because that was not my intent.

KindnessNoJudging May 26, 2018 at 11:42 PM

I didn’t say anything about Memorial Day. This where you can post anything and I was just thanking the Military.

KindnessNoJudging May 26, 2018 at 11:49 PM

Ooopsie and I meant to put this on talk about whatever you want.

Cowellian May 27, 2018 at 8:42 AM

Point taken!

Sara Hart May 25, 2018 at 9:40 PM

Don’t be Misled -Lynn Mackey Not Qualified to be Superintendent!

Lynn Mackey has neither the resume, experience, credentials, or the integrity to be County Superintendent of Schools She is the creation of a failed superintendent, Karen Sakata, who is trying to keep the county as the “same old same old ” educational litterbox it has been for her four years as superintendent.

Ask Mackey for her official resume, her work history, and and her credentials. Not much there. . She has been fired from a job in Alameda and relieved of duty at the County from the Court and County schools. She has never taught at anything other than Adult Ed, doesn’t hold credentials for either k-12 or Special Education.instruction, Her sum total of activity as ” Deputy Superintendent” has been running around since March when she was “appointed” and announcing she is the Deputy Superintendent. yet she doesn’t have any more responsibilities now than when she worked with the county day schools. In short,Mackey has no resume or accomplishment to speak about. Her assertions on her work experience are more fantasy, fiction, and wishful thinking than reality.

One of her little secrets is that she is a proponent of charter schools so she can use them to take money from districts to give to the county. She is more aligned philosophically with Clayton Valley Charter than she is with the county’s 18 districts .

Right now Karen Sakata is planning retirement at the end of July if Mackey makes it to the general election in November. This would allow Mackey to be appointed County Superintendent and appear as the “incumbent” on the ballot.Same move as Sakata made in march appointing Mackey “Deputy Superintendent”

Don’t be Misled – Mackey is not the one for CCC schools. We are not supporting her at the county and neither should you!

mtzman May 25, 2018 at 11:52 PM

Speaking of being misled, tell us, Sara, what position do you hold with “the county”? Your constant ad hominem attacks on Lynne Mackey are not doing Cheryl any favors.

mtzman May 26, 2018 at 12:17 AM

Speaking of being misled, please tell us, Sara Hart, what position you hold at “the county.” By the way, your constant ad hominem attacks on Lynn Mackey are not doing Cheryl any favors.

Chubby May 26, 2018 at 7:24 AM

POST DELETED
Please Note: Users who use multiple names will be deleted. Please choose a name so others can easily chat with you.

MVP May 26, 2018 at 12:54 PM

Clayton Valley Charter is still easily the best high school in Concord…go to any other high school in Concord and you’ll regret it…great education, great athletics, great kids!

Concord Mike May 25, 2018 at 9:41 PM

This coming Tuesday, May 29, Concord City Council and Planning Commission will have a “joint” meeting described as a “Study session on cannabis uses and industry trends; and provide direction to staff on taxation, regulation, and permitting of cannabis.”

The agenda is on the city website. Meeting starts at 6:30. No big surprises in the city presentation with one major exception: The police department now has decided to argue against ANY recreational and medicinal marijuana storefronts in Concord.

Of course I am delighted by this shift. Here is what their report says:

“The police department has determined that the existence of Retail medicinal cannabis storefronts would result in an overwhelming amount of oversight workload for police resources as they exist today, and not only would a complimentary Enforcement group need to be created, we should also expect to open our doors to the large black-market of illegal cannabis (medicinal and adult use) operations that would also flock to our city as these illegal businesses attempt to blend into the cannabis market as legitimate and licensed businesses until discovered. The black-market operation take this risk because the amount off money these businesses can make outweigh the financial risks of being detected and fined. Due to the flood of black-market business, the complimentary Enforcement group would need to be in place to handle the corresponding criminal investigations that would also result.”

Not exactly the endorsement the cannabis business lobby was hoping for I am sure.

There are other parts of the staff and consultant report which do tilt a bit (in terms of bias) toward cannabis retail, but the sobering testimony of the police department will (hopefully) give Council members serious reservations about proceeding with licensing storefronts in Concord.

I hope this bit of encouraging news does not result in complacency among those of us who want to keep Concord from going to pot. I will be at the meeting on Tuesday, and I hope others who share this view will attend and express their opinion. The council could go in any direction. Everything is still on the table, and this issue is not going away. We must continue to “just say no”.

I should mention not all cannabis-derived products are intoxicating or addictive. The ingredient CBD is easily separated from the THC in cannabis and has no psychoactive properties. It is CBD that is described as the most medically efficacious ingredient. I can see no reason why a CBD- only retailer (no THC) dispensary couldn’t be licensed to deliver CBD products (creams, pills,, edibles) to medicinal users. .I think most everyone would support this if city regulations could be written to include such a “No-THC” product restriction. Sincere medicinal marijuana users will tell you they don’t need to get high. They need to get better.

Hope Johnson May 26, 2018 at 4:27 AM

Concord Mike’s personal war against cannabis continues to use half-truths and poor logic to support his personal moral objection to decriminalization of its use.

Concord PD has not changed its position on cannabis. Chief Swanger consistently maintains that he does not support retail stores. When asked where he recommends retail be located if the Council should choose to change the code to zone for it, he advises it be in a location with high foot traffic. This particular position isn’t some new revelation.

The idea that legalization will cause a black market to flourish is ridiculous and not consistent with the American experience on prohibition. It’s the opposite. Ever heard of the 21st Amendment? Our government had to repeal its prohibition on alcohol in part because making it illegal caused a lucrative black market while failing to prevent the use of alcohol. Read up on the bio of Al Capone to learn all about the value of a black market during prohibition.

It is true this issue isn’t going away. Why? Because the “war on drugs” has been an epic failure through its narrow focus on prohibition. Voters have repeatedly supported legalizing cannabis in large part because decades of real-time experience reveals it is comparable to our use of beer and wine. The government’s attempt to control its use by claiming it’s in the same class as heroin doesn’t make that claim true – just as the government’s claim ketchup was to be considered a vegetable in school lunches back in the 1980s didn’t make that true.

Nature Lover May 26, 2018 at 8:15 AM

I disagree with you Hope on this subject. I do not want to see the City of Concord become the go-to place for cannabis in CCC. Concord residents who cannot attend the meeting please call, write, or e-mail your Council Member.

Hope Johnson May 26, 2018 at 10:58 AM

We all understand that people have different opinions on cannabis. However, I object to the use of propaganda, lies, and misrepresentations to justify any opinion pro or con. It is a poor way to establish policy.

For example, Concord Mike sites “studies” that “show” marijuana is addictive. The problem with the “studies” is that our government specifically and intentionally limits scientific experiments on marijuana so these “studies” are really analysis of estimates of types of cannabis use. Most come from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is the very entity that controls the amount and type of cannabis that anyone wishing to study the drug officially must use. This means the government can force the results to be anecdotal rather than scientific, which if you look at the studies themselves you will see is what is being done. Contrary to Concord Mike’s assertions these studies are conclusive, the studies make no conclusions, they merely “suggest” a line of thought based on estimates of use reported by states. Estimates, not scientifically gathered studies.

Why is this important? Because the facts aren’t based on an experiment that can be repeated by independent sources. The NIDA itself admits even its own estimated data is flawed because they keep changing the anecdotal methodology from year to year, causing it to be not comparable from year to year: “Due to the potential breaks in comparability, many estimates from prior years have been noted in the detailed tables as not comparable due to methodological changes.” Note their own statement says MANY estimates are not comparable, not just a few but MANY. This leads to the question of why not use repeatable scientific methodology – is the NIDA changing up the anecdotal questions to fit whatever happens to be the trending anti-cannabis rhetoric of the day. Eliminating this doubt is the whole reason for experiments in the first place.

Shame on anyone who wants to use this biased info as a basis to decide what people have access to in a free society. You may like to use such biased info now because the misinformation fits your desired outcome – but just wait until your condoning it now allows it to be used against something you don’t want. Remember when our government used to use similar tactics to say women couldn’t handle responsibility because they suffered from hysteria or that certain races were inherently less intelligent than others? No one should want this type of info to serve as a basis for government policy.

Scientific studies on cannabis are limited by the government, and the government acknowledges it. Prohibition leads to a black market. It isn’t an opinion, it is a well documented issue that even the government had to admit when it repealed the 18th Amendment.

Just admit you have a moral objection to its use and back that up. Stop with the propaganda.

Lena May 26, 2018 at 11:33 AM

Based on my experience, stoners recklessly hurt the people around them, but don’t expect an apology. They won’t remember the incident … because they were stoned!

Cowellian May 26, 2018 at 10:23 AM

OK, here is a whole-truth:
Marijuana is illegal in the United States, despite California pretending otherwise.

Hope Johnson May 26, 2018 at 11:09 AM

California, and other states, are challenging the federal law. It’s common practice such as when some states challenged Obamacare. Cities do it, too – a bunch are now challenging state eviction laws and immigration policy. Individuals do it to – the right to schools without segregation or a woman’s right to vote. It’s part of the system.

The basic rule is that California (or Colorado or Hawaii or Washington, etc) can challenge the Federal law but may not prevent the Feds from enforcing the law.

Cowellian May 26, 2018 at 11:31 AM

The basic rule is that cities and states are required to obey federal law, even while they’re challenging the law.

Just Say Know May 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM

It is true that cannabis is illegal at the federal level, but to rely on that excuse to continue supporting prohibition undermines the vast amount of scientific research we have supporting it’s safety profile as a substance. We as a collective body of people are more intelligent than that.

Just because the law says something is wrong or right, doesn’t make it so. Remember when it was legal in this country to have slaves?

Federal law has been on the wrong side of history a number of times and it will be on this issue as well.

Cowellian May 26, 2018 at 4:56 PM

John C Calhoun also promoted your theory of Nullification. Look where that got us.

Hope Johnson May 28, 2018 at 10:24 AM

@ Cowellian

You are incorrect that the states must obey the federal laws while challenging them. Feel free to believe what you want but be advised this is realistically not how the system is operating even if you choose to believe the opposite.

States’ only limitation in challenging the federal laws is that they cannot prevent the Feds from enforcing those laws. This is where the courts start weighing in and eventually the SCOTUS will set a standard. That standard doesn’t mean states won’t continue to challenge the law, though.

For example, five states outright refused to participate in any part of the Affordable Care Act when that legislation was enacted. Many continue to challenge this federal law by resisting sections of it as the courts issue decisions.

Another ongoing example – SCOTUS held that abortion is legal in the US but states may impose some degrees of restrictions. Despite this, states and cities try to implement local law that not only limits the types of abortions but makes all abortion unavailable. In other words, they are challenging a federal law.

Recall 'Em All May 30, 2018 at 10:39 PM

Can’t we just all get along . . .
If a position is presented , I can follow up and see how it works for me.
I find it very uncomfortable that anyone with a view is attacked for that view.
Just state your view, period. You don’t need to denigrate someone to bring another view.

Kentucky Derby May 26, 2018 at 11:02 AM

I agree with Cowellian. Comparing alcohol to drugs is ridiculous. You’re talking apples and oranges. A lot of crime is drug related. Addicts feeding their habit. When is the last time someone was shot in an alcohol deal gone bad situation? ANY drug (especially hard drugs – but marijuana included) is NOT comparable to beer or wine.

So drug dealers aren’t any more dangerous than the guy selling beer at the liquor store? Yeah, right.

Chubby May 26, 2018 at 1:27 PM

?? @ Kentucky Derby. Way to turn reality on its head. Comparing alcohol to marijuana IS ridiculous, but for the opposite reasons you ascribe. I’m going to heavily paraphrase your rhetorical question, “when was the last time horrible crimes and suffering occurred as a result of alcohol?”. Um, like constantly? Like a constant tidal wave of bloodied asphalt, broken lives, and destroyed livers? Like bar fights that started with alcohol, and end in murder?

I am a “user” of alcohol myself. Please don’t judge. I’m not like those other people. I’ve got it under control. No, really. But just because I like beer doesn’t make me incapable of reading the stats of the tragic horrors that it visits upon us year after year.

If you think the marijuana crowd is guilty of some kind of thought crime or cultural crime, you would be standing on firmer ground. Saying that THC is a more dangerous intoxicant than alcohol is an absurd view if one gives even a casual glance at crime statistics.

Kentucky Derby May 26, 2018 at 5:20 PM

You missed my point. Every time those of us who are against drugs, people chime in and compare it to alcohol. I never said alcohol wasn’t dangerous. It could lead to alcoholism or death – if you get behind the wheel of a car.

My point was alcohol is social, and drugs aren’t. Alcohol is legal, and drugs are illegal. Our church serves wine at our crab feed every year. We don’t smoke weed, snort coke, or shoot up crank or heroin. Grandma and grandpa can enjoy a glass of wine or beer. Or even a cocktail. Does anyone really want a grandma with meth sores and track marks? Doing vehicle burgs or armed robbery to support her habit? Where’s grandpa? In prison – again.

Most mature adults are morally opposed to drugs. Whether you’re a parent, you never did drugs, you experimented with drugs in high school or college, or celebrating 60 years of sobriety. People grow up and wise up through the years. Or you should.

Kenji May 26, 2018 at 11:43 PM

“When is the last time someone was shot in an alcohol deal gone bad situation?”

I can’t speak for isolated incidents, but I do know of a time when this was a not-infrequent occurrence: During Prohibition.

Kenji May 26, 2018 at 11:47 PM

Also, there is no question of comparing alcohol to drugs. Alcohol is not similar to drugs; it IS a drug. Comparing alcohol to drugs is like comparing baseball to sports.

Laura N. May 26, 2018 at 11:45 AM

Thank you, Hope Johnson for your informed and intelligent responses here. I agree and I would like to see the city of Concord work to incorporate legal sales and distribution into the local economy.

Nature Lover May 26, 2018 at 12:00 PM

Hope, your point about flawed research is well taken. Lets gather the research from Oakland and SF over a period of years before we make the decision to allow retail cannabis in a family oriented community like Concord.

Lena May 26, 2018 at 4:52 PM

A sensible suggestion. Thank you.

Hope Johnson May 28, 2018 at 9:57 AM

I hear what you are saying and appreciate that you will agree to using some scientific testing.

Our disagreement here is that I would like for Concord to participate in the process. For Concord to be an active collector of data rather than letting everyone else decide and then just follow whatever happens. But I do understand that people disagree on this point.

Just Say Know May 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM

Hope is correct. The narrative supporting cannabis prohibition is rooted in uninformed policy that has had the unfortunate outcome of racism and prejudice against the sick and poor.

The fact is that cannabis was a very reliable well-used medicine in our pharmacopoeia up until 1930 when Harry Anslinger, then head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics faced a lack of work due to the repeal of alcohol prohibition. How to stay employed? He went after cannabis and launched a very successful campaign to convince the American people that is was a scary drug. One of the main people against this effort was the head of the AMA, but who cares what the Medical Association has to say about our health, right?

Of course the American people wouldn’t buy Anslinger’s movement against cannabis because they knew cannabis to be helpful, so he promoted the word marijuana as a way to demonize the dark-skinned people who were using the substance and to put the fear of god into the minds of the vulnerable public. Not knowing what “marijuana” was, the American people largely bought his message, and voila! We are still fighting his very effective propaganda even in this thread that I’m replying to. Bravo, Mr. Anslinger!

For those of you who wish to get your information from fact-based peer-reviewed studies, these are the truths:

– Cannabis is not a gateway drug. In fact it’s now being relied on as an exit drug for those reliant on opioids. Alcohol is the gateway drug.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-pot/

– Youth consumption of cannabis has either decreased or remained flat in communities where cannabis has been made more available.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/11/following-marijuana-legalization-teen-drug-use-is-down-in-colorado/?utm_term=.81b290817e52

– DUIs and traffic fatalities do not increase in communities that make cannabis more accessible. Unfortunately the well-publicized RMHIDTA studies that promote the concept that cannabis has led to more traffic fatalities is not objective nor peer-reviewed. Yet our city and county officials unfortunately refer to it to inform their policies while many other government officials know well that this source of information is untrue and not factual.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/?utm_term=.0a3cffb60d1d

– Crime goes down in communities that regulate cannabis retail.
http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-marijuana-study-20170714-story.html

It’s fine if you don’t like cannabis, but please stop pushing your prohibitionist agendas on a topic that you’re uneducated about. It is hurting the people who rely on cannabis for their health, and it’s exposing the rest of our community to crime that could be avoided if it was regulated locally. And as far as cannabis’ impact on our health goes, your opinion isn’t valid unless you’re knowledgeable about the ECS.

Lena May 26, 2018 at 4:56 PM

I got my information in first-hand experience with friends who smoked marijuana in the late 60s, early 70s. It makes people stupid and irresponsible … period.

Kenji May 26, 2018 at 11:49 PM

I have known people who were made stupid and irresponsible under the influence of beer. Yet I’ve heard no voices raised asking for closure or relegation to an area north of Hwy 4 for EJ Phair or Hop Grenade.

Nunya May 27, 2018 at 5:28 AM

It is likely your ignorance which is the problem. If people need pot to avoid their life’s problems then they need to stop using it and deal with life. I had to deal with a bunch of idiots in the grocery store who stunk of pot recently. It does nothing but dulls your senses and make you act and look stupid. You can quote all the studies you want. We have all seen time and time again how there is some quack of a doctor with an agenda who will fake results to get what they want. As well your calling people who disagree with you racist clearly identifies you as a fascist. Like those in WWII you seek to use fear to control and silence those who disagree with you. That is no way to run a free society. I suggest you move to Russia, this is America where we enjoy freedoms like disagreement.

Lena May 27, 2018 at 1:59 PM

Exactly. We don’t need any additional stupid and irresponsible people. We have enough, thank you.

Aspirin May 26, 2018 at 4:54 PM

Better to focus our attention on a real problem – tobacco.

The science is solid: Tobacco is addictive . Tobacco kills, and is harmful to anyone exposed to tobacco smoke.

There is nothing as sad as seeing teenagers who think smoking is “cool”.

Tobacco companies continue to market their products to younger people. Stuff like “smokeless” cigarettes are not harmless.

Lars Anderson May 26, 2018 at 6:20 PM

I made a mistake last time I blogged, I want to say I’m sorry to ClayCord readers. I incorrectly reported Police Officer Ronald Bruckert – powerful head of the Concord Police Association – made 1.1 million in salary and benefits in a 36 month period – 2015, 2016 ,2017, actually it was ONLY 868,000 in salary and benefits, according to Transparent California, the site that tracks city salaries in Cal. It seems I double counted his overtime during this 36 month period. I did correctly report Bruckert wracked up 236,000 in overtime in 36 months – fighting Concord’s “pretend crime wave”. As many know, the PR arm of the Concord PD continually exaggerates crime levels in Concord – we’re told Concord is a dangerous place – gangs are everywhere – Gangs, Gangs, Gangs. We are told this by the Concord PD – obviously – to create a climate where a patrolman – like Ronald Bruckert – can make so much money he can eventually buy a home in Orinda, Clayton or Alamo – and a vacation home too (my buddy that sells real estate in Tahoe tells me retiring cops make up about half his customers now.) Concord residents?. Transparent California reports we make a medium salary of 52,000, senior citizens, such as myself, we make an average of 16,000 in social security. Concord City employees? Transparent Cal reports the medium salary for a Concord city worker is 159,000, so Ronald Bruckert isn’t the only city employee soon to be moving to Clayton, Danville or Alamo, if not Lake Tahoe. Concord residents have Council members Laura Hoffmiester and Tim McGallian to thank for this situation where city employees make three times what residents make. They believe City employees come first, last tol, since we residents get almost nothing in services for our tax dollars – all we get as an overpriced police department that fights a “pretend crime wave”

Nunya May 27, 2018 at 5:47 AM

Sorry to hear that you think crime is pretend. Please read the postings here and then realize that many crimes go unreported.

As to overpaid city employees, not sure what is fair for law enforcement. They risk their lives to protect us. That’s asking much more than most professions.

Forsythe May 27, 2018 at 6:40 AM

Please read:

All the Ways Marijuana Can Hurt Your Health
https://nypost.com/2018/05/22/all-the-ways-marijuana-can-hurt-your-health/

Lars Anderson May 27, 2018 at 10:18 AM

Nunya, It you do some research on the issue of how dangerous police jobs are you will learn that insurance companies rank the job of police officer at about 20th on the list of most dangerous jobs. This view that police jobs are highly dangerous – especially in a city like Concord where the crime rate is low – is just not true. It’s way more dangerous to take a walk in Concord, or ride a bicycle. (Time magazine reported the top 10 dangerous jobs in US where all blue collar jobs) In fact, we have never had a police officer killed in the line of duty in Concord. Most historians, I should mention, believe Concord began as a community in 1872 when a post office opened in our city. So we have not had a police officer killed in the line of duty in Concord in 146 years. While Concord is NOT a dangerous city for police officers to patrol, the police officers in Concord are getting “combat pay”, like they are patrolling South Central LA. Our city does not need to pay a patrolman – like POA honcho Ronald Bruckert – an average of 290,000 per year in pay and benefits – over a three year period – to keep residents safe. It’s also almost unbelievable – in a city with low crime levels, that Bruckert would make 236,000 in OT over a 36 month period (the average Concord resident makes just 52,000).
If you go on the Transparent California – the site that tracks city salaries up and down the state, you will learn Bruckert was paid a salary of 107,000 in 2013. He also made just 25,000 in OT in 2013. By 2018 Bruckert’s salary has ballooned to 149,000 annually and the OT Bruckert is “working” is now averaging 77,000 annually (see the years 2015, 2016, 2017). Why is Bruckerts pay ballooning like this Nunya? Is it because we’ve had a crime wave in Concord? No, that’s not it, crime has nothing to do with Bruckert’s pay levels.
Bruckert’s pay has ballooned because the amount of money flowing into city of Concord’s tax coffers has gone up since 2013, and because back in 2010 the City of Concord laid off 25% of the work force – allegedly due to the recession. So the city cut expenses back 2010 – laying off all these workers at the city (they laid them off everywhere except at the PD). Now that the economy has improved more tax dollars are flowing in so that has lead to this situation where police officers make 149,000 a year rather than 107,000. In fact, you can fill those patrolman jobs all day long at 107,000 a year, surrounding cities are doing it.
As I have been trying to explain to ClayCord readers, the Concord Police Officer labor union – which is led by Ronald Bruckert – not the City Council or the City managers office – “run” the city of Concord, that’s why police pay has gone through the roof – not because of soaring crime levels, it’s because the police labor union completely controls the budget process in Concord. The Concord Police Officers Association is setting their own pay levels – they run the town behind the scenes – the City Council and the City Manager – they hold power on on paper – but their power is really only ceremonial in nature. The reason we have this odd – actually corrupt is better word – situation in Concord – where police officers set their own pay levels – with simultaneously all other city service budgets are starved – is because the Concord POA has placed these stooges on the City Council, like Laura Hoffmiester, Tim McGallian, and Ron Leone.

Nunya May 28, 2018 at 6:20 AM

Unless LA is you, this posting from last year makes interesting reading

http://claycord.com/2017/02/12/concords-state-of-the-city-speech-with-mayor-laura-hoffmeister-video/

Hope Johnson May 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM

Interesting that Lars Anderson fails to mention Vice Mayor Obringer as one of the “stooges” placed on the Council by the POA. Whether you support the Vice a Mayor or not, the POA spent thousands and thousands of dollars sending out glossy mailers supporting her campaign for Concord Council in 2016.

Greg Kremenliev May 27, 2018 at 12:45 PM

In going door to door in Turtle Creek yesterday and also talking to folks outside KMART on Clayton, about 80% agree with the idea that the city council ought to follow the will of the people. They will have one last chance Tuesday night to get on the right side of history.

Randy May 27, 2018 at 1:57 PM

The will of the people is in the eye of those in power.

Concord Mike May 27, 2018 at 5:51 PM

@Greg,

Not exactly a scientific survey. Engage people at a store with any controversial question and most will politely agree in order to get on with their shopping.

Smoking ANYTHING is bad for your health and the health of others. Cannabis smoke has 33 carcinogenic substances. At least as bad as tobacco according to credible scientific tests.

We have seen this movie before. Big tobacco used to advertise health benefits of smoking. It was hip and glam. In the 1960’s as the body count grew, big tobacco hired an army of doctors, lawyers, and PR people to discredit legitimate research and produce their own propaganda. The big (and now well funded) cannabis lobby is doing the same thing.

Let’s make a deal.

I will support medicinal sale of cannabis creams, pills, and low/no THC edibles in Concord – if you will stop advocating for THC laced smoking, and vaping products and THC-laced candy and cookies that would be attractive to children.

Forsythe May 28, 2018 at 6:27 AM

For those of you who wonder why marijuana is now legal, try googling:

“marijuana + follow the money”

Here’s one write up:
“Tracking the Money That’s Legalizing Marijuana And Why It Matters”

When Alaska legalized marijuana in 2014, Alaska residents raised nine times more money to defeat the measure ($189,096) than to support it ($22,000). But advocates from 45 other states raised $1,094,812.

41 times more than residents.

Peter Lewis’s Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) led the Alaskan Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. They wrote the measure, paid contractors to collect signatures to place it on Alaska’s ballot, and promoted it to voters.

MPP is funded by billionaire Peter Lewis, who made his money as head of Progressive Insurance. It is based in Washington DC.

Source: DrugFreeIdaho.com

Big money is buying votes for drugs. Average citizens have an uphill battle if they try to fight back.

———
May 22, 2018 (HealthDay News) — Smoking marijuana during pregnancy has been linked to smaller weights and irritable behavior in infants. If a pregnant woman smokes tobacco along with marijuana, the effects on the baby are even worse, the study authors said.

Source: Healthday.com

AlwaysBePositive May 30, 2018 at 2:57 PM

healthdaynews.com is a subscription driven medical blog that is a news service. It hardly qualifies as a quality source. Since ingestion of anything while pregnant can impact the fetus, my question would be…where does cannabis stand compared to other ingested items…like sugar.

Forsythe May 30, 2018 at 4:58 PM

@AlwaysBePositive: Why would anyone with half a brain compare marijuana to sugar?

Try a goggle search of “marijuana + birth defects”

From
https://www.babycenter.com/404_are-edibles-or-cannabis-oil-okay-to-use-when-im-pregnant-or_10413899.bc

“Research is ongoing, but most experts, including the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), recommend against using any type of weed while pregnant or breastfeeding.

Ingesting marijuana edibles or cannabis oil is no safer for your baby than smoking weed.

The chemicals in weed – including THC (the ingredient that makes you high) – pass from you into your unborn baby’s system through the placenta when you’re pregnant and into your nursing baby via your breast milk, just as they do when you smoke.

Edible marijuana products (such as cookies, brownies, and candy) and cannabis oil might even be riskier than smoking, because they typically have much higher amounts of THC than what you smoke.

Similarly, synthetic marijuana can have much more serious effects than natural weed. But marijuana in any form is not less risky than other drugs (such as anti-depressants) just because it is “natural.”

Not only could these products harm your baby’s development, they can also impair your judgment and ability to be an attentive parent.

There are legal risks, too: In at least 14 states, using drugs during pregnancy is considered child abuse.

Women risk losing custody of their children, and several states require women who use drugs during pregnancy to undergo mandatory drug treatment.

At least one state threatens criminal charges.”

Concord Mike May 28, 2018 at 9:05 AM

@Flower Power,

I am completely opposed to what the Tobacco industry is doing, and when they start trying to change Concord’s laws to put more of their products or manufacturing in Concord I will oppose them too.

The Cannabis industry, their false claims, and their dangerous products is what is currently before the city council.

As I have said before, I have no objection to harmless medicinal high CBD low/no THC cannabis extracts in products like edibles, pills and creams. The problem is smokable and vaping products and products with high levels of THC sold in all recreational storefronts and most “medicinal” storefronts.

Smoking anything is bad for you, me, and especially our young people. Add to that the psychotic effects of THC and damage to young people, addiction rates of 10-30%, and crime associated with cash-only businesses selling high value, easily resold products… yuck.

Antler June 1, 2018 at 1:26 AM

YES!

Hope Johnson May 28, 2018 at 9:53 AM

Here we go back where we started.

Concord Mike is outright lying in his post. What else is he lying about?

There is no evidence supporting a statement that marijuana is addictive. Why? Because the government will not allow scientific testing.

Here is the exact information Concord Mike is twisting to falsely support his moral objection to cannabis use: “Recent data suggest that 30 percent of those who use marijuana may have some degree of marijuana use disorder.” It’s not a conclusion – it’s a suggestion based on biased ESTIMATES that the NIDA has cherry picked form states’ estimates.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive

Why would you want to base policy on suggested evidence?

Hope Johnson May 28, 2018 at 10:37 AM

Correction to additional misinformation – it’s not accurate to make a blanket statement that all leaves are the same.

Dolmas are great made from grape leaves but you certainly wouldn’t want to eat one rolled in oleander leaves.

Tea from chamomile leaves is relaxing but you wouldn’t do well to relax drinking coca leaf tea.

Inhaling vapor from eucalyptus leaves is used to clear the lungs but we don’t use tobacco vapor to clear anything.

Let’s work on decisions based in some scientific, verifiable through repetition research instead of religious, political, and fear-based bias.

Kentucky Derby May 28, 2018 at 10:50 AM

ALL drugs are addictive – legal or illegal. If you don’t believe this, you don’t understand addiction. You can get addicted to ANYTHING, and it doesn’t have to be something like alcohol, drugs, nicotine, etc. People get addicted to sex, gambling, shopping, food, work, etc.

Kentucky Derby May 28, 2018 at 11:10 AM

ALL drugs are addictive – legal or illegal. You can get addicted to ANYTHING.. It doesn’t have to be alcohol, drugs, nicotine, etc. You can get addicted to sex, gambling, shopping, food, the internet, work, exercise, etc. If you don’t understand this, you don’t understand addiction.

Denise Pursche May 28, 2018 at 11:12 AM

Did you know that our MDUSD Board and Superintendent hasn’t reviewed the curriculum (Advocacy for Youth – 3Rs Curriculum) for 5th grade health education, didn’t ask for public comments, or parent input, concerning new 11 lessons on sexuality education? Is it possible, that because it was an election year, and one of our board members is running for another office, that the board was NOT informed of the new curriculum, given a chance to review it, discuss it, and inform the public, because it was an election year? I’ve given this news story to both the Claycord staff and the The East Bay Times staff, but no one has investigated how this curriculum was implemented without board review (yes, 2 or 3 of the board have made comments about this lack of review and Brian Lawrence is on record saying, “this should never ever happen again in the future”), but still no news story. FREMONT Unified voted OUT this exact same curriculum last month. But, our board and superintendent is silent? Why?

Ms Jean May 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM

A letter went home 2/22/18 to tell parents about the new curriculum, and invited them to look it over on 3/6/18. There were also links to the curriculum for parents to look over. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/3rs-curric-lessonplans
If parents did not avail themselves of the website or parent info night, that is the parents’ issue. Teaches had to attend two days of training, to implement the new Family Life curriculum.

Denise May 28, 2018 at 11:15 AM

YES, VOTE Lynn MacKey for Superintendent of Contra Costa County. I vote only for for the brave and the forthright. When our board members do not vote on a curriculum about sexuality education with a vote of yes, or no, I have to ask the questions about the reason why. The exact same curriculum that the Fremont School District voted out. If you vote no, Cheryl Hansen, does that make some groups angry? If you vote yes, that does that other groups angry? On another note – VOTE Yes for Thurmond – Superintend of Public Instruction – CA State.

Sara Hart May 29, 2018 at 1:36 PM

Lynn Mackey supports the program – Check out her endorsements

mtzman May 29, 2018 at 2:09 PM

And while we’re on the subject, Sara, there’s a unanswered question outstanding for you on May 25 11:52 pm and May 26 12:17 am. Sorry for the double post there. Please feel free to answer either one.

CDE Watcher May 28, 2018 at 8:52 PM

Presumably you know Lynn Mackey’s stance on the MDUSD curriculum before deciding she is a better choice over the others.

Parents had the option to opt out after having complete access to what the students would be exposed to. Beyond that is the responsibility of the teachers to collaborate so each class is equally exposed to the same content.

Fremont reversed their decision and reinstated the curriculum at 6th grade.

To assume the MDUSD Superintendent is unaware of any new curriculum is short sighted. They took public comment since it sounds like you communicated with these people somehow.

Ev May 29, 2018 at 1:07 PM

Wonder how many people will show up for the Special meeting of the City Council and Planning? Now is the time for input on what is going to be allowed on medical and recreational sales and storefront stores, etc.

Lena May 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM

Today a notice from the City of Concord arrived in the mail stating the increase in sewer rates for Fiscal Yeat 2018-19. Once again, we see that the City of Concord charges a single senior citizen living alone the same rate as a household of four. In other words, a single member of a family of four pays one quarter of what a single senior living alone pays. This is patently unfair. No, worse than that, it is wrong.

Most seniors on fixed incomes (and most are on fixed incomes) can ill afford this $45 per year increase. Why the City of Concord is so intent on creating a hostile living situation for senior citizens is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary individual. A senior citizen discount needs to be instituted for the Sewer Service charge and it needs to be done immediately.

KAD May 29, 2018 at 8:06 PM

I totally agree.

Ev May 30, 2018 at 11:50 AM

Stayed up till 12;30 am to watch the City Council and Planning Special meeting. I am glad they heard what the community wanted, and made the choice to move slowly, and concentrate on the medical marijuana sales and delivery. Edi Birsan showed his true colors,by getting over exited about money from taxes on types of marijuana sales. One speaker said I do not want this council to be influenced by bribes and threats, which Edi said out of line, no one has been bribed, the speaker said this council has been in the past. Good for you, young dad. disappointed in one speaker who wanted the council to be the first and move forward with all that was put before them. Edi needs to take some lessons in speaking and leadership, he rambled on about every ones personal God, and how he wanted the city to move forward as Antioch, full speed ahead on all items. Well the Planning and Council outweighed the vote. Now its back to the study of what was decided last night. One thing not covered was residential homes used as grow and distribution of medical or recreational marijuana. We do have one homeowner who has rebuilt his house for this purpose, and the city said there has been only one license taken out, and that was for delivery of marijuana, and they are based in Emeryville. Did not get to hear the Police Chief comments, but they were brought up several times, will go back to the live stream..

Concord Mike May 30, 2018 at 10:31 PM

@Ev,

Glad you were watching the show. I assume it will be placed on the city website in the next few days. I was present for the entire meeting, and I felt it was a good outcome for our city and our families.

The four council members who approved only medicinal marijuana manufacturing held their ground again at the meeting, and directed city staff to move forward with additional consideration of medicinal marijuana only. NO recreational licenses.

I was happy with the turnout we had from Concord residents expressing their opposition to marijuana retail storefronts in Concord and their opposition to any provision for recreational sales. Several young families came to the meeting with their children to express their concern over the risk of ” Concord going to pot.”

The council chamber was filled, and speakers were passionate, but both sides were generally respectful of each other (as it should be).

There was one speaker who I felt kinda crossed the line, though. One cannabis business person (not happy with the direction the meeting was going) accused the anti-cannabis folks of being racist.
I guess sometimes when you run out of good arguments all you have left is name calling.

Following this guy’s rant about racism, a couple of young people from our wonderful Hispanic community stepped forward and shared their concerns about the negative impact of marijuana retail on families living in the Monument corridor. That was a mic drop moment for sure.

As you noticed, Mayor Edi was the only council member eager to license all recreational uses and make Concord into central county’s weed central. That has been his position from the start, and he is sticking with it.

Also, you mentioned one speaker spoke of a concern about council members taking bribes by the pro-cannabis folks. I would completely dismiss that concern. I have great respect for all the council members, including Edi, on that score. They are all trying to do the right thing for the city as they see it.

The Police Department did make a strong case against recreational and medicinal store fronts. Their research indicates crime increases at least initially when these storefront operations open up.

Forsythe May 31, 2018 at 7:23 AM

I watched the public comments on TV. All the City Council members, including the Mayor, at least agreed on one thing: the City of Concord needs more information. I would suggest that they do a lot of google searches. For example:

Google “marijuana + impairment”

Drugged Driving Deaths Spike With Spread of Legal Marijuana, Opioid Abuse
Source: http://www.pewtrusts.org

“marijuana + pregnant teens”

69% of Colorado dispensaries recommended marijuana for expectant moms with morning sickness
Source: The DenverChannel.com

“marijuana industry + addiction”

Dr. Nora D. Volkow, Director of drug abuse institute, offers words of caution on marijuana:
Source: Boston Globe

“When you legalize, you create an industry that makes money selling drugs. And how do you sell them? Mostly by enticing people to take them in high quantities.”

“If you’re a teenager, marijuana is much more dangerous than nicotine. It is likely to interfere with the development of your brain. Marijuana dumbs you down. Your job in life is to learn. To slow that down puts you at tremendous jeopardy.”

Lena May 31, 2018 at 3:14 PM

Does anyone who has lived in the area most of their life ever ask themselves “Where do these politicians that favor this brutish liberal agenda come from exactly?” You know the ones. They aren’t from around here, they are imports like Birsan or DeSaulnier, they obtain public office, and get “fast-tracked” on up the line to higher level political offices seemingly without the slightest difficulty or impediments when their agendas are seemingly in stark opposition to the will of the community. They pretty much just show up and takeover with what can only be described as an alt-left mentality that violates every belief of the traditions of the community.

mtzman May 31, 2018 at 11:56 PM

Why Lena, I think it’s called democracy. They, and others like them, win office because their agendas are not, in fact, in stark contrast to every belief of the traditions of the community, but, rather, closely aligned with those traditions. The ones who are out of step are people like yourself.

KAD May 31, 2018 at 11:07 PM

I knew that last comment would be deleted. The Charter School attorney will not release the details for Leone’s job contract. Please do not vote for him.

Are You Kidding June 1, 2018 at 10:15 AM

Completely agree, please DO NOT vote for Leone, there’s no transparency! He should not be an elected official in ANY capacity. Please do your homework and search for recent articles on him.

Are You Kidding June 1, 2018 at 10:28 AM

I completely agree @KAD. Please do your homework and look up recent articles on the this candidate. There is no reason this man should be an elected official!

Kentucky Derby June 1, 2018 at 11:29 AM

I’m not voting for Leone, and I know why. That being said, you can’t tell other people how to vote anymore you can tell others what to do with their hard earned money. Everyone is entitled to their vote, regardless of what others think.

R June 1, 2018 at 4:44 PM

According to Transparent California, Melinda Cervantes, a CCC LIbrarian makes $252,889 a year, with benefits and no overtime. Yet, Lars chronically complains that our libraries are underfunded and suffering at the hands of overpaid police officers. Point your vitriol a little closer to home, Lars.

In my view the Chief does just the opposite of what you allege. He deliberatley downplays crime in Concord. He and the City Council don’t make up a fake crime problem, they make up an image of Concord as a thriving, family friendly, romantic tree City. Yet we are plagued with blighted shopping centers, horrible roads, epidemic car burglaries, a downtown of boarded up buildings, chain link fences, burnt housing projects in the aftermath of a 55 million dollar arson fire, and Concord’s newest mascot, the angry crazy homeless guy, screaming at himself as he walks around town, leaving tipped over shopping carts in his wake. Frankly, not having a beautiful, anachronistic library so people can check out a book like a dinosaur is not what I think about when I think of Concord’s problems.

Concord Mike June 1, 2018 at 6:09 PM

@R,

Good rant and you make some valid points.

I don’t mind when city council talks up our city. I want them to speak proudly of our city, but I also want them to work hard to fix the roads, clean up the streets, and make Concord the attractive, family friendly city they speak about.

When I moved here 35 years ago, comparable homes were priced about the same in Pleasant Hill and Concord. Walnut Creek homes sold for a 25% premium. Today Pleasant Hill homes sell for a 20% premium and Walnut Creek sells for a 50% premium.

In other words, Concord’s reputation has lost a lot of value. Can’t blame our city council entirely. A lot has to do with the pitiful performance of MDUSD schools in Concord.

Aspirin June 1, 2018 at 6:12 PM

You have accurately described just about every large town and city in the USA.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: