« Sandbox - 9sep14 | Main | Cultural Solidarity (updated 16sep14) »

11 September 2014

Comments

Walt

It looks pretty good at face value, but I see a problem in #7
It may fly in the face of the state law. " max profitability"

Maybe someone can clarify for me (in the state law) how much($$) is accepted
" just compensation" I do believe "non profit" still applies.

The one thing I would ad is mandatory "book keeping"

No matter what is drawn up at our county level, it still must comply with state law.

Bonnie McGuire


Fish wrote, "...I don't think there ought to be any criminal implications at all from growing the stuff. I don't think you should need a prescription. I think you ought to be able to grow as much as you want as long as you aren't creating a public nuisance and annoying the neighbors. Grow it on the back patio next to the tomatoes….or pull up your lawn and grow it there….I just don't care! " Sept 11

I tend to agree with him, and like him am not interested in using it. I see too many people who throw their lives in the trash so that they can walk around like mindless zombies. Cannabis is a medical herb that can help some people when they need it. I've always thought how simple it would be to grow what you might need in your own garden...just like any other natural medical herb. There are many. Years ago I remember a televisions herbalist visiting my parents organic garden and pointing out different weeds that were actually herbs with specific health n medical values. Surprise!

When you look at the big pharma television ads recommending a drug and then listing all the side effects you can't help laugh at how upside down we are. I've known people who almost died because they (and their doctor) didn't take the time to read the warning on their prescription. Sometimes there's quite a list.

Then I read the discussions on cannabis, and do agree with those who say if everyone were free to grow it if they wanted it old t have much market value. Very true. This should be obvious watching the marketplace. First someone has to corner, or control the market. Then if they create a shortage it's worth a lot of money to supply the demand for it. We have laws against those using prescribed drugs, and those using alcohol abusing others and endangering the lives of others while under the influence. Therefore it appears the real struggle seems to be "who gets control over everything" be it money, or the protection of our human rights designated in the Constitution.

George Rebane

Walt 1155am - Good point Walt, I'd add record keeping as a sub-category of Grower Profitability. Without such accounting, there is no way to document profitability.

Russ Steele

The Union sponsored debate on Measure S is cancelled. The parties could not agree on a location.

More here: http://www.theunion.com/news/12972488-113/debate-measure-location-nevada

George Rebane

RussS 233pm - I wonder whether Patty Smith would agree to the Rood venue if Sheriff Keith promised to keep the SWAT team out of sight in the back parking lot ;-)

Russ Steele

I found that having pre-agreed on definition of terms was vital to any productive discussion or analysis. The left and right, pro and con, the for and against, all use the same terms, but hold different meanings for those terms. We used to call it a data dictionary, and common set of agreed on definitions and conditions. You might need to expand your list of definitions.

George Rebane

RussS 245pm - As I mentioned, the utility template I present is not complete, and most certainly the defined terms need to be expanded. I wanted to have readers start suggesting such terms, and perhaps also other categories and sub-categories as they participate in fashioning the template.

Don Bessee

The fact is there was an agreement last week according to the email I got from the Union Publisher that said all parties have agreed. That was before his editorial announcing the event. The pot growers chickened out after agreeing. Have to wonder if this has anything to do with the ASA V.P. Brad Pecimer-Glasse being arrested for fraudulent recommendations, not to mention the 300 or so plants? Look for the official Press Release from NO on S that just went out. Seems the Union could not wait for it before running todays online article. The Union needs to stop saying measure S is about revisions to 2349. It is a totally different document with the obvious problems Mrs. Rebane pointed out. Somebody needs to remind the growers that they have it awfully good as things are. While they point to Colorado and other legalized states they do not notice that the rules for individual grows are massively more restrictive than Nevada Counties current ordinance.

Walt

Reading the all of 5 FB posts on the arrest (bust) it's the boilerplate sob story of "he is just growing medicine...." among other blather,, and rails against the Sherriff (no surprise there) doing his job because this guy was breaking the established codes six ways from Sunday. That part the person fails to mention or take into account.
How about actually showing some evidence that the existing law is "too strict".
It sure doesn't help when their "top dog" is caught growing with the same script in multiple locals. Not to mention WAYYY too many plants.
There is only one reason for that. (in my opinion)

Walt

Look at the bright side. The new MRAP wasn't used. ( as far as I can tell)

Brad

"Somebody needs to remind the growers that they have it awfully good as things are." I disagree with this statement. The laws are still overbearing. For example, say you wanted to be able to grow your own MMJ. How would you start? You need seeds, or cuttings (clones)/ rooted plants. Where are you going to get those?
Having a bunch 1-2 foot clones is not going to get anybody high so there is no public danger there. Clones or cuttings or sprouted seeds should be exempt from the number of plants or square footage requirements on properties. But, if you let your clones hang around the yard until they start budding - then, you need to include them in your calculations.

Walt

After another close review of your proposition George, why is "recreational use"
mentioned? Or is this to be proposed on the state level at some point in time?

George Rebane

Walt 449pm - excellent question. I included 'recreational use' so that as we design a new ordinance we would consider that use of MJ since it will be the preponderant consumption of the weed no matter under what auspices it is grown. Having 'recreational use' as a sub-category allows us to decide how we want to represent it in the criteria for the new ordinance. For example, we could specify that the new ordinance would contain strictures to minimize (and criminalize?) recreational use, or on the other hand state that the ordinance should be moot on that use, or even provide for the non-intervention of recreational use. Remember, this is a utility function for evaluating candidate ordinance provisions, not the product ordinance.

Walt

Thanks Doc.,, with that, I don't believe we can do that at the county level.
No matter what the good intentions. This isn't the State of Jefferson (yet).
And wouldn't hold water in the court. ( If passed at the county level)
At least that's how I see it from the bottom of my ditch looking up.

George Rebane

Walt 511pm - OK Walt, then in your utility function under 'recreational use' you would specify that the candidate ordinance would be moot/silent on that form of consumption. Any candidate that started talking about recreational use would be downgraded with regard to that criterion.

Walt

Doc.,, as far as any county ord. is concerned at this point in time. I can't see the relevance until state law is amended or outright changed.
( BTW.. Your using too may 25 cent words for my limited edumication. I may need to visit Berkeley U of the net (wiki) to see what yur gittin at.)
What part am I not fully understanding? ( gotta dumb it down a little...thanks)

James Smith

Don, Don, Don......

It's time to come back to reality as the ASA had a meeting scheduled for that evening to distribute the 3-4" tall little plants to cancer members in our community.

As to your other claims, well we know exactly what your reputation is and just how often you validate this info into our community.

Why don't you tell us exactly how you became to live in our community?

How the International Banking Career going as you claimed in the Alta Sierra newspaper? Too bad you couldn't keep that job cashing checks at Household finance for more than a couple weeks.....

You shouldn't talk about integrity Don, as that is certainly something that you are lacking.

Paul Emery

RE: Don Besse 3:37

What Don failed to mention in his post is that that there was a considerable effort to find a neutral venue that had good TV and Radio access and also could provide more comfortable seating since this event would surely overflow the Supervisors Chambers. I led the effort and secured the use of the Historic Nevada Theatre in downtown Nevada City for the debate. The Nevada Theatre Commission even waived rental fee's wanting to support and provide greater community access for this important public forum. However all did not go well with that proposal as it was rejected by Sheriff Royal and Don Besse for three reasons, parking, lack of time to publicize the event change and, in Sheriff Royals opinion; the likelihood of a biased attendance.
Parking is not an issue since it's a Tuesday evening at 6PM, and there was plenty of time (2 weeks) to publicize the change and the Theatre would provide twice the seating therefore giving access to a greater number of our residents by not having to force them to stand in the back of the Supervisors Chambers or huddle in the lobby which we have seen many times in the past during controversial meetings.

The bottom line is that our Nevada Theatre, a historical treasure and venue for hundreds of events in our recent history and located in the County Seat was rejected as a suitable venue by the Sheriff and others in the no on "s" campaign.

I wish to express my thanks to the Nevada Theatre Commission for their willingness to providing free public access for this vital public dialogue.

Walt

What's with the sales pitch of the Nevada theater Paul? Tourists are not coming to see the "weed war". You failed to mention that the current "culture" considers it a trophy for their calculated demise of the "culture" that built it. ( a little "historical" fact.)

Why not the Rood Center? That's were rules and reg.s of the county are debated. Funny how us miners didn't demand we hold the hearings on "home turf".

And just what's wrong with a little "police presents"? Too many attendees may have warrants?

" County business" should be held on public county property.

Brad

I vote Western Gateway Park. Work to build a coalition of Jeffersonian libertarians and ASA supporters.

fish

I vote Western Gateway Park. Work to build a coalition of Jeffersonian libertarians and ASA supporters.

You probably want to check with jeffy....I think he is involved with venue scheduling these days!

Paul Emery

Walt

As I stated above the Rood Center is too small

George Rebane

First, I invite your kind attention to the 12sep14 update of 'While Waiting ...'
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/09/while-waiting-for-a-backbone.html

Re the Measure S debate venue. I do understand PaulE's 804am point that Rood will be too small for the anticipated crowd. And since this would be a privately sponsored debate (not a govt legislative hearing or action), it doesn't need to be held in the BoS chambers. I am puzzled why a larger venue like the Nevada Theater would not serve all interests.

Don Bessee

The fact is still the fact. The grange was never accepted, not the first time when the ASA asked the Drug Free Coalition to come to their town hall or when the Union first asked me to put a team together. It was primarily rejected because of the way the so called non-profit candidate forum was run by Pattie Smith during the primary. We immediately searched for a better venue and then agreed to the format once the Rood Center was confirmed on the Monday before the Unions announcement. The email chain is clear that an agreement was in place then reneged on. The Rood Center is where the League of Woman's Voters does its candidate debates. So if its good enough for US Congress or Judges they why not for the ASA? I would submit that it had more to do with a desire to have an advantage. The Rood Center is way more handicap accessible and has flat topography for parking. Unlike Nevada City. It seems that the ASA should be more concerned with the access for all those 'patients' they claim to represent. Lets be honest the growers do not listen to the ASA, they do what the hell they want in pursuit of profit. Plain and simple. They are happy to have the ASA trot grandmotherly Patty out to parrot the same party line over and over. Just like this has nothing to do with kids and seizures or PTSD. There is NO shortage of weed and defeating measure S will not change that. The county produces so much product that it is shipped all over the country. Its all a smoke and mirrors campaign to confuse the issues, its a Land Use issue. In every State that has expanded mmj or legalization since 215 they have very strict structures unlike our current ordinance 2349.The ASA lump RA zones in with AG zones. RA is a residential use. Alta Sierra Ranchos as well as LOP Ranchos among other parts of the County would be open for giant commercial grows under measure S. That is not compatible with Residential areas. No Commercial activity in Residential zones period. Property values matter to the Residential area property owners. You can not make your profit off the back of your neighbors values and peaceful use.

Paul Emery

Don

The"fact" is that The Union and KVMR were sponsoring the debate and, upon finding out that the Nevada Theatre Commission was willing to donate use of the Theatre for the debate decided to schedule the event there instead of the Supes Chambers. It would be a more neutral location but most of all offer twice the seating which will be necessary to accommodate the huge interest. Pro "s" said yes, the Sheriff said no. Parking and handicap access was not a problem.

There have been many debates over the years in larger venues because of the anticipated crowd. The Tea Party candidates debate for example have always used the Grass Valley Vets because the capacity far exceeds the Rood Building. I have been covering election debates for nearly 20 years and never has a venue been rejected. The wishes of the hosts of the event, in this case KVMR and the Union have always been honored.

The rest of what you say in your 11:06 is campaigning so I have no comment.

Walt

The fact the "pro" S side refuses to address the or even try to justify the huge profits. Here or anywhere else. the only claim " It's good for local shops" just doesn't cut it. Not a peep on county's "cut" (taxation).
There is now way in hell one person can consume the product of the current "maximum" of "harvestable product". Be it smoked or otherwise.

The illegal profits MUST be fully addressed.
An above board grower should have no issue "registering" their grow with the County.

Paul Emery

Walt

Registering of growers was attempted by Mendocino County but the Feds demanded and received the names of the growers from the County and used the list to make federal arrests. We have some detail in our Constitution that forbids self incrimination.

James Smith

Paul, that's the same reason why Nevada Counties notarized letter stipulation is not lawful, and it should be handled as per the rental agreement, which is lawful.

Walt, if you actually knew the law on these issues, you might not continue to make so many outrageous comments, as it's pretty obvious that your pretty ignorant in this area....

Walt

Like I said before Paul, if you don't want to be able to tell the "good" growers from the bad,, don't gripe when the cops come knocking.

Then there was this
"Ogden memo" -- a missive from Deputy Attorney General David Ogden telling federal law enforcers that they should not focus federal resources "on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."

Just maybe all those busts you speak of were out of compliance.

Like another "Paul" said.. "Now for the REST of the story".

If you play by the rules, you have nothing to worry about.

Now about those huge profits.... Dispensaries apparently have the "non profit clause". Now back up your "just compensation" excuse.

Walt

Mr. Smith. It's been well publicized that the MJ industry is what's keeping the county business afloat. " #1 cash crop".

If I'm SO off base, start spelling it out.
I'm on record as being an EX-user of MMJ. ( for many years for a back injury, with card in hand)

Paul Emery

Walt

Medical cultivators in Mendocino were playing by the rules of the County when the registered and paid fee's but were trumped by the Feds who subpoenaed the records and used them to make busts . That's why growers are concerned about official notifications to Nevada County.

"The Board of Supervisors directed that the records be provided to the federal grand jury as requested by the subpoenas," he wrote in a news release.

The move follows a year of legal wrangling over efforts by federal prosecutors to get their hands on paperwork from the program, which was scrapped in January 2012 under threat of a federal lawsuit after less than two years in operation. "


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2221120-181/mendocino-county-to-turn-over

James Smith

Again Walt, you seem to know nothing and because you have a card it doesn't make you any smarter in either of these areas......

Based upon your comment, I have a NRA card, so I should have a PhD in gun ownership and the laws that surround them, right?

I bet that George Zimmerman was a genius based upon this thought process...

Walt

Well Paul, your getting a good taste of the bait and switch of the "O" and Co. administration. You can't say you were never warned.
And the latest publicized bust, was in "compliance"? LOL!!! ( lets hear bout that raw deal)

As for Smith, the typical deflection. No facts what so ever. I have been born at night, but not last night.
I have grown plenty, and well within the regulations. ( and not sold to others for a quick buck.) I had an EX inlaw who grew under the guise of MMJ. Then got busted smuggling the "extra" on the other side of the country.
I know plenty about what I'm talking about.

Now some hard facts from your side of the bamboo fence.
Justify the big profits that you know damned well exist.

Walt

Love it... The Pro "S" want a public discussion, yet can't answer one basic legitimate question right here. outrageous untaxed profits.

That gets nothing but crickets, yet the demand is to relax growing regs. even more. without any oversight of producing a drug.
Like Don said. It's all about the money.

Russ Steele

County CEO Letter:

On September 23, 2014, the Opposition to Measure S Panel will be available to answer question for the public regarding the dramatic changes that Measure S, if passed, will have on our community.​ The Q&A session will be held in the Nevada County Board of Supervisors Chambers at 950 Maidu Avenue in Nevada City, from 6 – 8 PM.

Don Bessee

Mr Emery, You were never part of the email chain I had with the Union. We had an agreement for the Rood Center and Pattie Smith backed out, or should I say the real ASA bosses they like to keep from the public as the real face of the ASA backed out. You can try and revise history but the email chain tells the story. They backed out and you offered an alternate site after the fact. Now Pattie Smith in on the Union website saying the Sheriff backed out the day her VP was busted with 300 plants and fraudulent documents, more revisionist history. We will have 3 chairs with name plates for Munkelt, Smith and Devlin as agreed, their choice to fail to keep an agreement. As someone pointed out today, why am I surprised they did not keep their agreement when they don't want to follow any rules anyway. I would observe that the ASA's VP would still be massively out of compliance if measure S was in effect today. If it were really about patients Brad Glass would have had legal recommendations from the poor oppressed patients, right? Makes the point its all about PROFITS NOT PATIENTS rather eloquently.

Paul Emery

Don

Pattie Smith and the No on S group were not the producers of the event, KVMR and The Union were. As producers of the event we changed the Event to the Nevada Theatre, once it became available, for reasons I will not state again. Your side refused to participate for reasons stated . It was our prerogative where the event was to be held not yours or Patti Smiths. The event at the Rood Center is your own.

I think it's pretty strange that your side refused to be at the Historic Nevada Theatre, a dearly beloved historic venue in Nevada City that offered so much more than the Supes Chamber and was a far superior venue in the opinion of the producers of the event.

In short. it was never your event. It's my understanding that ASA would have gone to the Rood Center if it was the only option but it was not. The Nevada Theatre, due to the generosity of the Commission, donated their space for public benefit which you declined to attend.

Patricia Smith

Don Bessee speaks with a forked tongue. I have the email chain too and I have three separate emails that say different locations were approved at different times. I asked if the Nevada Theater was "set in stone" and was assured that it was. Sheriff Royal backed out of that venue immediately after we came to terms. I initially didn't want to move from the Rood Center so groups would have a place to table, but I agreed to move to the Nevada Theater after Paul and Jim assured me that it was a better venue to hold the anticipated crowd. So over the course of debate venue discussions, ASA agreed to debate at the Banner Grange, the Miner's Foundry, the Rood Center (initially), and the Nevada Theater. Sheriff Royal will only debate at the Rood Center. Why?

We will be holding a Town Hall Forum and invite people from both sides of the issue to come ask questions. You can bet our side will not get the same respect at the Rood Center! If you are interested in learning the facts, please plan on joining us on Tuesday, September 23, 6:00pm at the Nevada Theater. But if you want to attend a pep rally, go to the Rood Center. Some people want to be educated, while others are content to remain ignorant.

I did not have anything to do with the candidates forum at the Banner Grange other than to provide the facility. (I was the BG rental manager at the time. I have since resigned to have more time to campaign on Measure S.)

I think it would behoove everyone to resist passing judgment on Brad. I thought people were innocent in this country until PROVEN guilty. After speaking with Brad's attorney, I am convinced that he will be exonerated and possibly have a lawsuit against the county for violating his rights.

Brad was roughed up pretty good for having the audacity to ask for a search warrant. (This was his obstruction of justice charge) His big toe nail was ripped from his foot, he suffered multiple scraps and cuts and his clothes were torn. This is the third incidence I have heard of in the last month were the Sheriff's department has invaded someone's home without showing a warrant. This should alarm the hell out you law & order types.

Also, who are the real faces of ASA that we keep from the public?

Walt

Nice little back and forth, " come to our forum to questions answered" etc. ect.
yet one or two of the "big chesses" right here, won't even answer one BIG relevant question RIGHT HERE.
How bout it Ms. Smith? Care to address the "profit problem"?

Walt

It appears that profit is the true motive behind "S", and "patient access" is purely a cover story. Not one of you will confront the issue.
Laws and regulations are for others to follow... Right? Only idiots pay taxes.. Right?
If you want to make a buck, get a job, and make it honestly.

Don't "Colorado" Nevada County.

Bill Tozer

Ok, I agree with Don that it is a bad mistake to lump R/A with A zoning. With A zoning, agriculture is the primary use and residential is of secondary importance/use. AR is equal importance to agricultural use and residential use. A/R is residential being the primary use with agricultural secondary, which is why many A/R zones forbid cattle, etc, and smelly animal poop. All depends on the primary or secondary use of a residence.

What I would like to know from y'all out there (and looking at Dr. Rebane's Utility/Criteria), can anybody agree what is a legal marijuana grow and conversely, what constitutes illegal marihuana plant cultivation.

Looking ahead down the road when growing marihuana cigarettes for recreational purposes ( getting high, stoned, feeling small) becomes legal, do we want possession of more than an ounce illegal, as in Washington State and Colorada?

Bill Tozer

Ooooppppssss, RA zoning gives residential use the primary purpose, ag secondary purpose. AR splits the importance of use equally....meant to say don't put RA in the same group as A or even AR. I forgive y'all for reading what I wrote, not what I meant because that is the kind of guy I am. You have been cleansed.

Walt

Well now. Warren Buffet has heard your crys.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-12/buffett-s-berkshire-has-unit-that-helps-marijuana-growers.html

Now he wants a piece of the action.

Walt

Something new is afoot. A new way to steal crops?? ( just a guess)
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/09/12/mysterious-men-dropping-from-helicopters-to-chop-down-norcal-marijuana-grows-mendocino-county-lear-asset-management/

Don Bessee

Cry me a river Pattie. James Smith = Brad Pecimer Glasse = we know the names. Your so called Non Profit Candidate Forum at the Grange should have been called the Friends of Fran Cole. You distributed a video with an Embedded Commercial for Fran Cole, I have a copy. You,Brad Pecimer Glasse, McCloud and Labelle-Montiero were running the show. An FPPC Violation. Hank Westons constituents were wise enough to crush your buddy. Be reminded that much of your crew has a court order behind their Alta Sierra Bull Shit. Why don't you tell us why you need out of area UFCW Local 8, people from Oakland and out of State Interests to sell your propaganda Madam President? If there are really 3 percent of the population in Nevada County who have a REAL recommendation can you help us understand why your boss Brad had 300 plants without real recommendations? Please tell us why our Patients have to do without their 'medicine' so your crew can sell to Oakland and so on out of the County? Its Profits Madam President, Not Patients. You obviously never were sincere with your agreement to debate. Your 3 Chairs will be there. You can bring all the motorized wheel chairs you want, the Rood Center is very disabled friendly.

Walt

3%? That's it? And everybody and their brother is growing "mmj" around here?
That sure explains why not one has the ....guts to answer my inquiry about
profits. Illegal enterprise is the name of the game. ( and all tax free)
Asset forfeiture should be employed, and well deserved. The MMJ law was billed as "non profit" to the voters of the state to reduce the cost to "the patients"
What a load of crap. Well someone's "skimmed" goods got busted headed East near Truckee. I hope the "mule" sings.
Can you say,,, Blood money? How many gangs are good customers up here?

Walt

According to KNCO,, the IRS will be saying "hello".

Paul Emery

Don

If indeed ASA decided to fill the "empty chairs" you will be providing on Sept 23rd who would be the moderator and what would the format be. Also who would be the producer of the debate?

Keen Observer

Walt,

I agree that it is time to call a spade a spade, and a heart a heart. Patricia Smith is correct in saying that there are legitimate MMJ patients within the county, but it is certainly hard to declare that a majority of growers do not generate some kind of profit, be it small or large. I am aware of many local growers, all of whom supply "some" of their crop for medicinal purposes, the rest supports the household economy. With that being said, they all somberly follow a code of "never get too large," as the larger grows tend to fall into the crosshairs of the heavy hand of the Federal Government.

I get a real kick out of the antiquated viewpoints of the Don Bessee types, whom are direct beneficiaries of the once large military industrial complex that allowed his generation to flourish in a false sense of economic security. Let's face the facts, MMJ (whether medicinal or recreational) generates wealth in our small community, a community that is plagued with a dearth of jobs that actually provide a decent quality of life. However, this problem does not apply to those whom happily enjoy the last remains of government and private corporation pensions; the last remnants of a generation whom have no concept of the modern economy and are sheltered from the difficulties of living and raising a family in a society that has detrimentally become ever more progressive and "eco-friendly."

Ask around Don, retail businesses in Nevada County have a unique and small boom in Oct. and early Nov. This boom is the envy of large chain store retailers in other parts of the country, whom typically experience a decline in business prior to the Holiday Season.

Why not skirt around the issue and quit forcing MMJ growers to hide their profits. If we legalize MMJ, the patients benefit, our local economy benefits, the tax coffers benefit, and the additional household revenue might actually save some from having to put on a leash to the Federal Government through welfare benefits. Let's face the facts, with local NGOs and Eco do-gooders destroying what used to be good jobs (timber, construction, mining, etc..), its high time (pun intended) we entertained some economic ideas to capitalize on the growing demand for MMJ, before we miss the boat. Perhaps then, our local LE could focus their limited resources on other drug offenders that actually harm the community (i.e. meth, heroine, etc..)

George Rebane

KeenO 957am - You argue an interesting point - a little profitable larceny that is widely known and does no obvious harm should be overlooked by law enforcement agencies. My question then is - who makes the decision of when and when not to overlook? Is that something that is a wink-wink between the BoS and the sheriff, the sheriff and the state narco task force, the narcos and the fed's DEA? Is that what is being done now?

It seems that under the current ordnance both the medical and recreational users have more than enough supply. Everyone is making sufficient money that "supports the household economy", inter-state drug trade, etc, and even the cartels are happy. So why mess with something that works? (Unless, of course, local growers want to increase their profits above current levels. As some have pointed out above, the profitability aspect is something no S proponent wants to factor into this discussion.)

PS. You nailed your first use of 'whom', but subsequent uses of the word kind of fell off the wagon.

Walt

Keen.., I never had a problem with the MMJ end of things. As for full legalization, I will play the "John Kerry" card. I was for it before I was against it. I have first hand experience of just what the drug does. The all mighty dollar be damned.
In my opinion, the same pro MJ crowd, is the same anti mining crew. It's OK for them to break the rules, but if someone started digging for gold in their own back yard (so to speak) they would be the first to cry foul from the highest of the trees, call the law, the EPA, and any other regulatory agency.
Yet these guys don't want ANY oversight what so ever.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Until state law says otherwise, rec. use is a "frond upon".
Any real construction jobs here are done by carpet bagging flat landers.

Keen Observer

George,

I appreciate your correction of my use of who and whom, this is my grammatical Achilles heel. I am not arguing a point in regards to selective governmental prosecution of MJ growers; I was merely stating that given LE's (federal, state, and county) finite funds, generally only the largest of MJ offenders ever encounter any legal troubles. This is not an argument, merely a factual observation of the current state of affairs. Many examples of this currently exist within law. I can technically receive a speeding ticket for driving 57mph in a 55mph zone, but LE is usually more inclined to drop the hammer on the 70+ mph drivers.

In your scenario above, you are correct in stating that there are many that currently benefit economically from MJ, but the glaring exception would be the taxman. The taxman misses out on the income, his only consolation prize is the comparatively paltry sales tax receipts from the businesses supported by MJ growers. Fully legalizing MJ would allow the principles of free markets to lower the price as more growers enter the marketplace. The current high price of MJ due its illegal nature makes it beneificial to the cartels, their influence in the marketplace would most certainly decrease as their profit margins shrink. Their economic demise would be similar to that of Al Capone after his release from prison and the reinstated legal status of alcohol. The S people won't discuss profit because it casts a negative connotation. This however does not change the profitability that exists in the MJ marketplace, I am merely suggesting that we eliminate the pussyfooting around this fact, and instead seek to capitalize as a county on this burgeoning industry.

Walt, not all MJ supporters are self righteous eco "do-gooders ." As a libertarian, I support just about anything that generates a beneficial economic state for as large of a group of people as possible. For this reason, I am solidly pro-mining, pro-construction, pro-development, and pro-marijuana. By applying Libertarian principles to boost the economy at any cost, this would in turn destroy the current poor economic situation that allows socialist and/or progressive viewpoints to flourish (think of their battle phrase "capitalism doesn't work"). Conservatives would be wise to keep this strategy in mind. Economic freedom and the opportunity for people to support themselves may be the last hope to turn our country away from the death spiral that occurs from a massive bureaucracy supported by welfare recipients.

Walt

Yes, I may have painted with a wide brush. But it's pretty damned close.
BTW.. Our church burned to the ground this morning. Not a good day....

Brad C.

Profit-isn't that why people go into business? I think I am hearing a lot of Occupy Wall St. rhetoric here. Hilarious! How can people who don't know how much work and effort goes into creating a quality product dictate what the profit margin should be? Is the new anti-progressive fundamentalist position that "government needs to contol profit margins"? Laissez faire free-marketeers are out - government controls on profit are in!
How much should a winery owner make? Let's dictate his profit since the crop grows in Nevada County. Alcohol is a drug, yes?
I have never heard so much whining about someone growing some plants on their property. Boo Hoo, I smell a skunk, ewww, let's outlaw skunks!
Let's factor in possibly losing your land to the Feds, possibly getting arrested by local law enforcement, potential legal fees, irrigation set up, water, electric, fuel, soil amendments, labor to grow, maintain, harvest and trim product, potential theft, security systems, bank prohibition on accounts connected with a federally illegal product, etc. so we can dictate what profits are acceptable. By the way, I am not a grower, or a toker.
I think some folks need a reality check if they think MMJ growers are part of the infamous 1%er crowd. Occupy the Grow Sites and protest!
Ever heard of supply and demand? Based on the few factors I mentioned above, a lot of people are scared away from trying their hand at growing their own. The profit might seem excessive because the risk is excessive. Decriminalize it and more competition will occur and prices will find their natural level.

fish

Why not skirt around the issue and quit forcing MMJ growers to hide their profits. If we legalize MMJ, the patients benefit, our local economy benefits, the tax coffers benefit, and the additional household revenue might actually save some from having to put on a leash to the Federal Government through welfare benefits. Let's face the facts, with local NGOs and Eco do-gooders destroying what used to be good jobs (timber, construction, mining, etc..), its high time (pun intended) we entertained some economic ideas to capitalize on the growing demand for MMJ, before we miss the boat. Perhaps then, our local LE could focus their limited resources on other drug offenders that actually harm the community (i.e. meth, heroine, etc..)

Agree for the most part. Full legalization removes the artificial price support that the illicit nature of the crop builds in......so I wouldn't go counting tax revenues just yet. I'd pull law enforcements fangs on everything except things like meth due to the impact of the processing (chemical waste...etc.) and the follow on costs of cleaning up these "production facilities".

PS: The great posting with real name and e-mail experiment at jeffys is over....I actually found a subject where we agreed and let him know. He still wouldn't post my comment.

He is the Gatekeepers Gatekeeper!

fish

More good news on the federal financial front......


$2.66 Trillion: Tax Revenues Hit Record Through August...


Still spending 18% more than income this FY.....well done Barry O, well done indeed!

Laura Rose McLeod

What I don’t understand is how this Don Bessee character figures into all of this. I could give you a list of unsavory comments and actions from this guy, but for some reason the “powers that be” give him credibility. I have attended meetings of FONA (Federation of Neighborhood Associations) and ASPOA (Alta Sierra Property Owners Association) where they actually addressed the issue of him speaking in public with his view point and making it sound like he was speaking for the Associations. ASPOA had to write policy for Board of Directors conduct because of his actions, which by the way he would not sign. They would love for him to leave, but their by-laws won’t let them remove him so they are stuck! Same with FONA, the President of that Association commented in the meeting I attended that Mr. Besse is not to speak for the group without their consent. Can anyone tell me how this guy materialized? From what I know of public record this guy should have been arrested long ago. Oh and by the way Don, – It’s McLeod !

fish

Posted by: Brad C. | 13 September 2014 at 11:28 AM


So did the planet start spinning in revers suddenly.....first jeffy and now agreement with Brad! Bizarro Saturday!

George Rebane

BradC 1128am - "... dictate what profits are acceptable ..." ??!! Your lance is again pointed at the wrong windmill. No one in these quarters wants to dictate profits, only to include in our discussion the overarching notion of MJ profits and the facility with which they may be made under the auspices of the various regulations considered. I recall that, according to some lights, one of the desired aspects of a good ordinance should be the profitability of the growing enterprise. (Relevant to the topic of the piece I posted here.)

Now the problem is that if we make growing MJ into a commodity business, then profitability will be reduced to a level at which it will provide very little support for 'household economies'. That is just a hard fact of how open markets work. It is the oligopolies and monopolies that make the money. Peter Thiel's piece is a recent reminder of this -
http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536?mod=trending_now_2

Keen Observer

Brad C., spot on topic, I appreciate the recognition of the hypocrisy that is inherent in other arguments. After all, it is perfectly kosher for less than 10 (not a joke) greedy Wall St. Bankers to create a financial environment that crippled the world economy, but I'll be damned if Mother Goose can legally grow some MJ to enjoy in her retirement and supplement her dismal Social Security check. To that point, it is in everyone's interest to criminalize families that grow MJ for a living. Instead, let's force them to seek out low-paying and local tourist supported jobs. They can supplement their income with Uncle Sam's infinite resources. Then we can all denigrate their political thought process and wonder why they keep voting to support the governmental gravy train.

Walt, sorry to hear about your church, and also about the bad experience you had with a previous renter. Make no mistake, if MJ is ever legal, I would support strict regulation and accountability for all parties involved. Part of this regulation would be to protect landlords against renters that grown MJ on their property with permission, which would be a criminal offense. As it is now, a landlord can dictate pet ownership, the same train of thought can be applied to MJ.

Disclaimer: I don't grow, nor do I smoke MJ.

Walt

Brad. ILLEGAL is the key. What part of that don't you understand?
The current "legal" rules are what they are. Deal with it.
If your allowed to grow "X" that doesn't give you "the right" to grow an extra "Y" and "Z". No matter "how beneficial" it is to local business.
The grape growers pay their taxes just like everyone else who plays by the rules.
If they hid profits and got nabbed the IRS would pay them a visit as well.
Paying "your fair share" as a grower, just isn't in your play book.

Keen Observer

George, your Peter Thiel argument only holds water if MJ is legalized at the federal level. Until then, the legal regions can still peddle their wares to the illegal regions on the interstate level, much as how things occur now.

Regardless, the initial increase in demand will allow for household economies to capitalize, and the MJ marketplace won't necessarily be overrun by corporate giants. There are still households that could capitalize on geographic monopolies, and don't forget the "artisanal" or "organic" aspect that smaller mom and pop companies could use to their advantage to distinguish their MJ from Kraft or Monsanto (hypothetical and sarcastic) brand MJ.

Walt

Now would be a good time to " anonymously" help a "community" with some of that ill gotten gains. Up to the challenge? Maybe an envelope with another "green" left on the church steps in the middle of the night? Your "clan" is already pushing the "Robinhood" story line. But I won't hold my breath.. I doubt the church will ask any questions of "where" the "donation" came from.

I have volunteered my skills to the cause, and I'm not even a "church go'n man". ( but I take the faith to heart as best I can) But It's right thing to do. I'm pretty sure someone will supply the equipment for me to use, another the fuel.

The Good lord put that plant on the earth for you to make a buck off of ( to help you out a little) so why not give him his due? ( payback time)

You can accept the challenge or not. Only time will tell. But rest assured I will be there to know one way or the other.
Your "clan" is growing the money. Pass the beanie cap, and give till it slightly hurts. You can always grow more profits.

Keen Observer

Fish, no one is counting tax revenues yet. The better part of zero is still zero, some income taxes would still be better than none.

George Rebane

Not versed in MJ production, is it correct to conclude that it is very easy for every user (recreational/medicinal) to grow their own MJ plant on their own premises (e.g. even inside). I understand that one plant will more than satisfy an individual's annual consumption of the dear weed. Would not a regulation that permitted such enterprise satisfy every consumer?

However, were that come to pass, then the MJ market might collapse since no one wants to buy what they can easily grow. Is that OK with the pro-S folks?

Keen Observer

Ah George, you are correct in its relative ease to produce. But then again, so are tomatoes, but everyone is content to purchase these and other vegetables at the grocery store for an inflated price. The true demand in the MJ marketplace will be the folks whom wish to consume some MJ on a Friday night after a 40 hour work week (maybe even instead of a beer), or those consumers not willing to sacrifice their own personal time for their desires.

Walt

George. That's pretty much how the current law here is now.
Sorry KO, Tomatoes are a lot harder to grow compared to MJ. ( I know.. I tried it, even indoors)
Remember.. I'm a reformed self grower. ( nope,, didn't sell any what so ever.)

Paul Emery

Walt

Correct, the current law allows Medical users to grow 6 mature plants per year. It's the county ordinance that prevents that in large numbers of situations.

George Rebane

Allright!! Growing tomatoes is something I know a lot about, having been involved in that pursuit since early teen years. Growing tomatoes is very easy. Once the plants are started and caged, all it takes is a leisurely stroll every other day or so to check the watering, harvest the ripe ones, snip a sucker or two, and squish the odd unlucky tomato worm. Every summer Jo Ann's 'farm' has a plot for seven plants, and they produce an overflow of tomatoes which we share with friends and freeze chopped tomatoes and spiced sauces for use during the winter. Bottom line, for at least four months of the year no grocery tomato graces our table, only Mama Rebane's very delicious home grown need apply.

If MJ is an easier grow, then an appropriate ordinance (like 2349?) should really be the answer to all consumers' wishes. However, commercial growers would run into a bit of problem, since it would require an enormously scaled up operation to make a profit. And, of course, in built up areas those run into the understandable NIMBY concerns.

Were the state wise, it would promote MJ growing in the ag areas of the lower foothills and the central valley. According to my lights, this would not cause a runaway operation that makes everyone into a pot head any more than growing your own tobacco leaves would make everyone into a nicotine addict. But then, I'm really out of my depth when it comes to the manifest pleasures of MJ.

Walt

Well Doc. You got me beat in the tomato dept.
The MMJ plants I grew over the years, I stuck a few seeds in the ground, and added water. The rest was pretty much up to "them". Minimal care on my part.
The dog took care of the deer. It's a weed by definition.
I don't believe I'm an exception to what ever "rule" there is to growing said "plant".

fish

Posted by: Keen Observer | 13 September 2014 at 12:36 PM


Actually isn't this the only way to still make money if restrictions are lifted and arbitrage goes by the wayside.....selling the various "appellations"? The Pliny vs Budweiser argument?

George Rebane

Walt 1105am - Very sad about your church this morning. I assume you all will rebuild, and the country/city should not hassle you on getting the plans approved. In the interval, you and all yours are most welcome to worship at our church - Sierra Presbyterian at the corner of Gold Flat and East Main.

Patricia Smith

OK, here is my answer to the "profits" questions. First of all, it is not illegal to get reimbursed for your time and expenses for growing marijuana for others. Somehow Sheriff Royal has interrupted the law to say that no money can change hands. Not true!

Sure, there is plenty of marijuana being grown in this county that is purely commercial. Measure S does not condone these activities. However, many cultivators grow medicine for humanitarian reasons and give it away at no cost. And yes, some sell their extra medicine to dispensaries to supplement their household incomes. Again, this is how you are supposed to deal with your excess medicine. I know this is hard for some of you to accept, but it is true. Brad is one of the people who donates his product to patients in need.

ASA has been working with the State Legislators since Prop 215 passed to get meaningful regulations in place that include taxation. The only reason we still do not have a law in place is because law enforcement (The Police Chiefs Association & the League of Cities) have worked to make sure these laws didn't get passed. So they have no one to blame but themselves for the current state of affairs. They want to keep the Drug War going to keep their big grants coming from the Feds.

Keen Observer

Fish, we are in agreement. My point to George was to clarify that corporate involvement (or monopoly) in any marketplace stills leaves enough vacuum for Jane and John Doe to make a couple of shekels on the side if they play their cards right. If cheap was the only way to peddle any said product, Mercedes wouldn't exist. There will always be folks willing to sacrifice more income for superior product. In regards to "appellations," this point must be true, as there would be no reason for the Bay Area folks to be investing "political" dollars into the positive push for Measure S. In local jargon, "Nevada County growers must be doin' something right."

Walt

Thanks Doc, We attend St. Patrick's in GV.. I'm pitching in to do my part for all my neighbors and home town. Heck. I helped build the place when I was young. One of those old time community Church raise'ns of the day.

Funny when asked to kick in, the grower clan scrammed like roaches when the lights go on. Not one " count me in", or "I'll ask around" ( but not surprising.)

Don Nelson

Hi:

For 40 years we have been fighting the war on pot. Today, as measured by it's buying power in relation to gold, it is 11 times cheaper than when the pot war began, in Humboldt, in about 1975.

To be very specific, it was $5,000 a pound at its peak and is now at perhaps $1,100 or $1,600 a pound in this area depending whom you talk to.

So, by the rules of supply and demand, the drug war is lost. Long lost. It is time for a new approach. Yes on S sends a message that we no longer want to justify the drug wars erosion of civil liberty in the name of 'safety.' It did not work for prohibition either.

The change is coming. It is just a question of when social conservatives decide to quit wasting our money on results that we are not getting. Rood center needs to quite being ineffective, reactionary, and using the issue for their culture war.

It is simple supply and demand. Every "bust" reduces supply. Demand is still there. The drug war is obviously not winnable by repression and the "cure" has become worse than the crime.

The drug war police own the violence that results. They deny it but inadvertently they create it -- just like during prohibition.

The truth is that drug war police profit from it in the form of wages and power. Most will do something more "sensible" once the laws change. Although, it may not be as exciting.

Meanwhile, the danger is that they erode civil liberties.

Meanwhile, tax payers are in the middle and foot the bill. Yes on S says to these authoritarian types "the jig is up."

Yes on S says "Let's rid ourselves (or re-orient both sets of folks that profit from the drug war -- the police and the gangsters.

You don't think police profit? Read about the freaking half track they bought with confiscated property or the 33 agencies that split drug loot from a bust in New York. Both articles were in the Union less than a week ago.

I refer you to
RAMP Republicans against Marijuana Prohibition
LEAP Law Enforcement Against Marijuana Prohibition.

I don't expect social conservatives to agree -- they are fighting a culture war. But, the rest of us should wake up to market reality (as espoused by libertarians and tea party types, and come together to end the violence and profiteering that we are enabling by not reigning in Rood Center and their self-interested crew.

I am not saying they are not sincere. I am just saying they are not in touch with the trends or the ideological underpinnings of true conservatism. And what they plainly deny is that the drug war is long lost -- in that pot in particular has NEVER been more cheap and available than now.

Some of you sound like you might be sensitive to the ideological underpinnings of conservatism and the associated 'reality' of the market place. You may be ready to listen to either Sheriff Mack or Tom McClintock more than Keith Royal when it comes to MMJ.

I have already given up on the Board of Supervisors. They are mostly pawns or basically asleep creatures of the public sector special interests that are at stake here.

Thank you,

Don Nelson

fish

Posted by: Don Nelson | 13 September 2014 at 02:11 PM

Good post! I trust this is headed to the local media outlet that must not be named?!

...and the best part about it is that you can change one or two sentences and it applies equally to the progressives war on guns!

Walt

So then what do we do with all the people that can't pass drug tests to gain employment? All those "safe work place environment" laws are on the books, and insurance companies have plenty of say in that matter. They will say "Fine. Employ anyone you like. We don't have to cover you anymore."

What's your plan for that?

Patricia Smith

George, Just read your comment that one plant can supply any patient with enough medicine for a year. Where did you come up with that statistic? The average plant produces 2 pounds of usable material. If you juice, use tinctures or make edibles, you would need a minimum of six plants to supply your needs year around.

One child patient with catastrophic epilepsy uses a pound of cannabis a month to control her seizures - ad she wigs 35 lbs dripping wet. Imagine what a full grown man might need. We are not asking for the moon. We just want to be sure that patients do not run short of medical-grade cannabis from one season to the next. We do not have any form of distribution in Nevada County. If a patient runs short, his only recourse is to go Sacramento or buy commercial weed from dealers who do not check their medicine for quality or ask for ID's. What system do you think works best for patients and for the community?

Paul Emery

Walt

Where is your church? I'm sorry to hear that.

Walt

Alta Sierra is on fire. Evacuations!! Bobcat CT. and around.
Burning fast!

Get out!!!

fish

Posted by: Walt | 13 September 2014 at 02:27 PM

I guess they'll just need to decide what's more important to them. If someone needs to smoke to blunt the effects of chemotherapy I guess that will need to take precedence over employment. The insurance issue is a valid one but I imagine it won't be significantly different than someone who has an alcohol issue (even considering the time lag for THC to clear ones system). I've known potheads who were pretty sharp just a couple hours after smoking but this was just my impression....I'm sure there is copious data that disagrees with my impression. I know guys who could 12 a twelve pack and show up for work the next morning without any apparent ill effect.

My employer won't allow me to remain on the payroll if I smoke pot..they're unlikely to change this even if California removes all strictures on use. I want to remain employed so I'm not smoking!

George Rebane

Patricia 230pm - More careful reading please, Patty. My 1241pm did not claim infallible knowledge, only what I've been told by law enforcement types. And maybe they were talking only about recreational smokers.

In any event, posit your 6 plant minimum. Then can we not focus on that amount as the max in built up areas? When you ask me "what system do you think works best ...", I invite you to review the topic of this post, and then using the format I've provided (which you can expand), describe the attributes of a, say, minimally satisfactory ordinance for supplying medical marijuana.

I repeat myself when claiming with certainty that unless people of good will first define what a good ordinance looks like (what criteria must it satisfy), we will continue to talk past each other as we have done for years.

Now most people (me included) agree that the business as usual war on drugs has been a disaster, and continuing along the same path is insanity and/or perfidy for those institutions (legal and illegal) that profit from continuing such a war. So let's try to make some progress by starting with each contending faction first defining their utility of a good ordinance. Then we can compare those and attempt to negotiate a common set of criteria which we then use to evaluate candidate ordinances and/or their detailed provisions.

As certainly as tomorrow's sunrise, unless we adopt such a different approach, each side will continue their business as usual while talking past each other and attempting to bamboozle the voters with cleverness or outright lies.

This is a 'decision process' in which I am a career professional. Wanna dance?

PS: by extension I invite the BoS or their agent (Sheriff Keith Royal?) to join in this exercise. As an alternative we can, of course, continue on the established fruitless path.

Paul Emery

George

Here is the situation.

State law entitles someone with a medical recommendation the ability to grow six adult plants per year and consume the amount recommended by their physician. Many Counties and most Cities restrict citizens the ability to grow what they are legally entitled to therefore they must rely on others to provide them with what they are legally entitled to. Also many people do not have the environment to grow at all such as those living in an apartment or care facility therefore they need to be provided for by someone who can thus we have MJ dispensaries and growing combines referred to as collectives that are legally entitled to provide for these people.

Nevada County was very friendly to collective growing allowing growers to accommodate entitled persons by growing for them in their gardens. These collective grows could grow six plants each for their members whose script (recommendation) was required by law to be posted in the garden of their provider thus six recommendations, 36 plants. Growers were entitled to be reimbursed for their efforts by their members for time and expenses.

Also dispensaries have members and provide to their members what they are legally entitled to under the law. Those dispensaries have providers (growers) that provide them what they need for their members require. Dispensaries pay growers for their time and expenses thus you have growers providing Cannabis products for dispensaries and receive compensation.

For years, until the current ordinance, Nevada County growers were allowed to produce product consistent with State Law thus we developed a thriving cottage industry employing hundreds of growers and workers in an enterprise entirely consistent with State law. All the Sheriffs department wanted to see was an equivalent number of scripts to conform with State law. I am not an expert on this so I can stand correct5ed.

All that changed with the passage of the current ordinance because the requirements of the code does not give growers the amount of square footage or environment they were used to before the Ordinance therefore leaving their efforts subject to confiscation if discovered.
Measure S supporters claim their Ordinance corrects this allowing growers to provide for their members as they had before.

There are still many growers that have no respect for state law and grow what and where they want with no regard for State law. Measure S does not justify their actions.

Don't take this as an endorsement of Measure S from me. I am just trying to claricy the discussion.

Does

Paul Emery

I will acknowledge in advance that the current State law is in some situations used as a cover for recreational use and distribution of Marijuana.

George Rebane

PaulE 404pm - thanks for the situational update. Problem is everyone has their version of the situation, and the beat goes on. How about trying something different?

Walt

"Holy Smoke" Paul,, The Penn Valley Church burnt down....
I think it may have an electrical fire that started it. My power browned out a few times about 1 or so. I thought it was someone into a pole as usual.

The real drag is what's happening in Alta Sierra at the moment.

Don Bessee

Exactly as projected the Liberal White Guilt afflicted pellene-o-phials are apoplectic over in jeffy land. All because I had the temerity to call out the pot profiteers for their crass exploitation of disabled kids in their pursuit of profit. The emperor has no clothes folks. They will now stick to the play book and accuse me of killing cock robin, the Lindberg kidnaping, flight 317 and that I am personally responsible for global warming (even though its not warming). The usual suspects manipulation of the so called non-profit candidate forum is why the Coalition turned down invitations to ASA events. PROJECT SAM (Smart About Marijuana) is Patrick Kennedy's national organization that helps Coalitions with messaging and tactics against the pot profiteers. In last weeks National conference call we all see the exact same playbook. From NY to Fla. across the mid-west out to the left coast. They national big money boys (like Soros) tell the local profiteer groups to get a gaggle of disabled's in motorized chairs as shock troops and savage anyone who dares ask what it has to do with the local issue. Like here, we are having a Land Use Ordinance discussion yet they stick to the play book and its all about taking away dying babies medicine. The Big Lie, The BIG LIE, THE BIG LIE. They stick to it even when like here the objective reality is very different. We are up to our eyeballs in weed in a State with virtual legalization and the local price as gone down since 2349 was implemented. A clear indication that there is no shortage. The growers who met with the Dem. Supervisor Anderson freely admitted that only 10 percent or so of weed is really for patients. The pot profiteers only care about the tax free profits that suck our water and poison our land and wildlife. Can someone hand the emperor a robe, he is awfully saggy and it hurts my eyes. I bet I could get a recommendation from a pot doc for 99 plants for that! :-)

Walt

Plenty of "crops" are going up in smoke as I speak. Cheech and Chong are trying get down wind. That's not even going to put a dent in the local supply.

Michael R. Kesti

Walt 13Sep14 10:20 AM

I find it wholly appropriate for you to play that John Kerry card, Walt, for it turns out that you are as liberal/progressive as is he. Hint: your experience with marijuana is not the same as everybody's. Even if it were, only a liberal would use that experience to justify limiting others.


George Rebane 13Sep14 10:15 AM

Today makes the second time I have recently seen you use "ordnance" where you clearly intended "ordinance." Anyway, I hope that was your intention!

George Rebane

MichaelK 706pm - Many apologies, I saw only one in my 1015am, where was the second? Many years in defense systems development implants a hardwired memory that exposes me sometimes when I'm typing fast. Thanks for noting it.

Michael R. Kesti

George Rebane 13Sep14 07:16 PM

The other was in the first sentence of the introductory notes of the article posted 1Sep14 with the subject line "Medical Marijuana Cultivation Initiative - Nevada County Ballot Measure S"

Don Bessee

I just had someone make me aware that it seems the lefty jeffy thinks he is the emperor in my last post. So sorry sir. The emperor is the tired old argument that the pot profiteers are perpetuating on an uninformed electorate. I have in recent years had training from the most effective High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area bosses. One killer thing was how to do a fact based power point presentation that the profiteers hate, not just the rape of the forests and slaying of fauna. It has goodies like Dennis Peron the daddy of 215 giggling on Dutch tv, giggling about the gullible California Voters. Put out front a little old lady talking about end of life issues.... You have all heard it for years especially this last calendar year. Our property values are starting to stabelize, lets not back slide. We need families to realize how wonderful our community is to maintain our Counties future. Middle Class Urbanites who have kids and want better send them to prep training all the way through school so they get into a great University. These are the ones who are willing to commute to have a family life here. Given the documented damage to brain development in youth does anyone think they want pot farms next door? I'll say it again, the growers chickened out on the Debate. PS to Lefty Jeffy - You as is your habit, pollute this conversation with 'progressive' issues like Common Core. I will ask anyone who cares to review my fact based posts on his blog about the real truth regarding the failure of oversight in the Nevada County Superintendents of Schools Office and Board of Ed. Please send me all the Common Core comments if you can find one. My concerns about financial shenanigans were validated by the later exposure of the what looks to be very signifigant embezzlement. Getting the money in the class rooms is critical to bring back our schools rankings that the young mommies want. Go Niners! Pray for the Raiders and the Giants are still in it.

Walt

BS M.K.,,, A drug is a drug, and it has every reason to be regulated.
I was young and stupid at one time too. And "not everyone" has my self discipline and control. Abusers will abuse no matter what the substance.
In this current issue not everyone wants to "play by the rules" because of the "easy money". These profiteers don't care one bit just who they sell this drug too. Right down to grade school kids. ( though they may not personally sell it to them themselves.) It's far from "harmless".

As the law states today, it for medicinal use ONLY. I can't help that some doctors will "prescribe" it for any malady real or imagined, for a few hundred bucks per who walks in the door.

If you get caught growing more than is allowed, suck it up and deal with the consequences. If you get caught selling the same applies.

Just like my personal shooting range. It's within the legal guidelines. And tough cookies for the guy next door who can't because he doesn't have the proper setbacks. To be neighborly, I keep the gunfire to small caliber, and not my "heavy weaponry" I take that where it's more appropriate.

Do what's right and abide by the law. No matter how distasteful you think it is.

Walt

Here is another example MK,, I'm damned good at what I do. Yet I would be agin' the law if I did a job without a contractor's license. 500 buck is the legal limit for not having one. ( that includes my "just compensation")
To me it's not worth the risk of the consequences. Do I like the law? Nope...
But it's there for a reason.

Bill Tozer

Brad made an interesting comment comparing those who wish to limit the profits of dope growers to the Occupie Wall Street/ Brother Ben E/Maxine Walters/Barry Zerobama "you are making too much money" crowd. True, we are discussing putting limits on those who grow marihuana wacky tobaccy hoochie hoochie cigarettes. Can't deny that one bit.

Suppose a counter argument is to compare it to our porous borders and illegal aliens hopping over the fences or getting their backsides wet crossing the ole Rio Grande. Can't they read English? Sign says keep out.
. Some would say everybody is doing it and you can't stop flood of trespassers on sacred US soil. Others would counter "What exactly about the word illegal makes it so friggin hard to comprehend?"
So, there you have it. Make all illegal aliens legal and make wacky tobaccy legal. Or not.
Interesting read so far.
Three points: One, market forces are having an effect since people of all walks of life, in sickness and in health, have been growing the weed to take care of their consumption needs. Price is dropping like a rock. Gerry Fedora heard about folks dumping it for 800 clams a pound. Don't think that is possible, but it could be if you don't have a good marketing strategy. Business ain't for everyone.

Two, if you got it in your head to grow excess kilos, better have a buyer lined up well in advance. Dispensaries treat growers like crap lately offering only rock bottom prices to the suckers trying to unload a dufflebag of K's.

Three, it's ALL good nowadays. Strains ain't like the old seeds and stems days, two finger lids for 10 bucks of harsh Mexican Brown floor sweepings. Heck, heard of some kids growing a strain they call Agent Orange. Kids say the funniest things and come up with some off the wall names, but I digress. You won't get a penny more for 100% organic with no chemicals. So, add your Miracle Grow or whatever.

Four, ( yes, I said three points which makes me a liar, lair pants on fire)....four, if somebody really wanted to find an in he, grow that relatively new strain that is truly for medicinal purposes. Forget THC and getting high, this new strain focuses on pain reduction and alleviation rather than getting stoned as a stoner. No charge for this advice and I don't tokey tokey no more. No thanks, I had enough.

Bill Tozer

Last paragraph , first sentence big typo: should read "if somebody really wanted to find a niche, grow..."

Walt

Your a true scholar Mr. Bill. Man,, do you have a way with the tongue.

Walt

Think about this. Just because The Great Progressive Lefty President can pee all over the rule of law, doesn't give anyone else who worships the ground he soils to do the same.
The head of the IRS said " we will follow the law were we can."
We you just go right ahead and give them the same excuse when they come pay you a visit, and see how far you get.
I do believe I gave "the busted one" that same advise just days before he hauled off to the pokey.

Paul Emery

George

Before we try something different we have to have some kind of consensus about what the current law is then we can talk about how we things should change. Without that common ground of understanding how can we move forward? I think I offered a pretty clear picture of the current law but would welcome a factual challenge because I don't pretend to be an expert.

The comments to this entry are closed.