« Silence of the Lambs (updated 14sep14) | Main | Ruminations – 5sep14 (updated 6sep14) »

01 September 2014

Comments

Gregory

George, given the legality under state law of the underlying activity, irrespective of anyone's approval or disapproval... why is any of Measure S worse than the current ordinance unless one values being able to make growers jump over more hurdles in order to be legal?

For example, if you can't see it from the outside, why require the posting of one's "script" on the outside of the grow area rather than inside? Building codes are still enforceable and landlords are still free to write leases that forbid the activity even if they no longer have to agree to travel to a notary to give their tenants a get out of jail free card.

Russ Steele

California is facing serious long term drought. I did not see any menton of waters usage in the discussion of Measure S.

According to researchers a single pot plant consumes 6 gallons of water per day. Measure S significantly increase the number of plants that can be grown both indoors and outdoors. Six plants consume 36 gallons per day, 1,080 gallons a month. 100 plants consume 600 gallons at day, 18,000 gallons a month.

A single person uses about 90 gallons a day or 2700 gallons a month, and two person households about 150 gallons per day due to sharing. Or, 4,500 gallon per month. 100 plant consume the same amount of water as 4 two person families. Where as 600 plants consume about same amount as 24 two person families. Now multiply that by 100 pot truck farms of 600 plants in Nevada County and we have some serious water usage, that could affect up to 2400 families.

With California facing a long term drought, water is going to be critical. Increasing grows by 500% of is going to consume more water, water that maybe needed by humans to survive in Nevada County if the forecast long term drought becomes a reality. Increasing a huge number of water hungry plants in Nevada County does not seem to be a good drought survival strategy.

Gregory

Russ, what is the consumption of water for rice crops in Cal, per pound that makes it to market?

Citrus? Avocado? Cotton? Strawberries?

Orchids?'

I use very little water myself... I suspect I could be growing enough to supply the cancer ward at UC Davis and not crack the per household yearly water use in parts of Sacramento County.

Besides, you're back to wanting to make a legal operation illegal by different means. Personally, despite thinking at some grower's households (and yes, I have one or two in mind) air should be illegal if they're the ones doing the breathing, it should be the crap they've done and will again do in the future should be the reason they're behind bars, not the pot growing for their own use and that of everyone they've cajoled into cooperating.

George Rebane

Gregory 107pm - I think retaining more control over the growers is the entire argument for opposing Measure S since that seeks to weaken the county's control under the current ordinance. That is also apparent by the many areas in/about which Measure S is totally silent, thereby leaving these areas open for diverse individual interpretations and implementations.

Gregory

George, the entire body of civil and criminal law remains intact... so be specific. Other than wanting to be a thorn in the side of growers following the law... why not S?

Where the law is silent, existing law (civil AND criminal) remains. What specific problem(s) are you concerned about?

George Rebane

Gregory 246pm - The existing ordinance seems to be working, and S has a number of loosenings and omissions when compared to 2349. The supply of marijuana for 'medicinal' and other purposes is more than ample. I think its up to the opponents of 2349 to make the case for S - what problems of Nevada County is it supposed to fix without creating other worse problems - rather than those satisfied with the established order having to critique every one of a countable infinity of provisions introduced by every new proposal. So, after you Mr Goodknight.

BTW, PaulE and I had lunch the other day, and S came up as a topic. While Paul does want to change 2349, he does believe that there are some better coverage and provisions that S could provide. I hope he details some of those entries in a new third column. He did express some affinity with Yuba County's ordinance, with which I am not familiar other than his statement that it is pretty laissez faire about growing marijuana.

Russ Steele

Gregory,

Cotten production is in decline in CA due to the fact it requires a lot of water. Rice fields are fallow due to the lack of water and rice farmers are switching to nut trees and drip irrigation due to the lack of water. No idea about Strawberries and Orchids. We are not talking about 500% increase is Strawberries and Orchid production.

Gregory

I still don't hear any specific objections besides it's for maryjewana and the writer's agin it.

While I know I won't be voting no, I've not yet decided whether to abstain or vote yes; based on what I've read here, I'm leaning more towards yes. Give me something concrete, guys.

I am touched that Russ is so concerned with the water usage by pot cultivation, but I suspect there is no other usage that returns so much value on the investment, which means we should let the pot growers buy or pump all the water they need as the best and highest (far out!) use of the water.

Michael R. Kesti

The parallels between the criminalization of marijuana and the prohibition of alcohol are amazing. Prior to prohibition there were some who abused alcohol, many more who imbibed responsibly, and those who sought to control others' lives, often “for their own good.” Prohibition provided those willing to break the law with a relatively easy to produce and distribute product that could be sold at immense profit while making criminals of those who continued to drink but were otherwise law abiding. These resulted in overfilled prisons and gangsters who needed to protect their territories while sometimes willing to trespass on others', often leading to violent bloodshed and deaths. The repeal of prohibition immediately put the gangsters out of business and the status quo ante was restored.

All that remains to complete the parallels is to legalize and regulate marijuana in exactly the way we do alcohol. Nothing else makes sense.

George Rebane

MichaelK 449pm - Agreed. In your opinion how closely have we achieved your ideals of regulating and legalizing marijuana with 2349 in Nevada County?

Russ Steele

Gregory,

Make it legal and regulate it like booze and then let the market determine the best use.

Paul Emery

George

Are you aware that the current Ordinance allows the police to enter your property for practically any reason. It is not a "criminal" process therefore allowing a much easier process to searching your property. A neighbors alleged complaint is enough and it doesn't have to be documented.

A standard search warrant needs assurances that a crime is being committed of that there is reason to believe evidence of a crime is on the premises. Since cultivation of MJ is legal under state law this system gets its authority from essentially building codes and I know how much you like those. I can be more specific if you like. I'm really surprised that you support that process being a supporter of property rights and the like.

I am told by proposition S supporters that there is no map of school bus stops. they have repeatedly asks for documentation of stops and none seem to exist. Many are ad hoc and change from year to year.

Walt

Paul. It's still a CONTROLED substance. Since someone is (technically)growing /making a "pharmaceutical", the cops SHOULD be able to show up without warrant. Just like the FDA can walk in and inspect any other drug maker.
If your playing by the rules, you should have no issue. Inspections of any business have always been "no notice". What makes dope growers special?
BTW,, anyone hear of any charges on the pot grower who killed the guy "passing through" his dope patch in PV? I haven't heard a word if he was there to rip off dope or not.
The "legal" dope growing here actually worked out well for me. My EX brother-inlaw got busted hauling his "legal grow" from here to someplace back East.
I really disliked the SOB.

George Rebane

PaulE 791pm - The implication of your complaint about 2349 allowing police to enter your property is that passing S would remove this infraction. There is nothing in S to restrict such entry, so this point is moot.

I understand that The Union publishes the location of school bus stops at the beginning of every school year, and yes, from time to time they do change because the residences of school age children change. Another red herring.

But one of the provisions of S that disturbs me is that the renting grower has no requirement to tell his landlord that he has become a grower after moving in. Since, as Walt's 752pm points out, MJ is a controlled substance, it should behoove the would be grower to inform his landlord that he has started such an enterprise in the rental. Requiring the landlord to specify all manner of things in a rental agreement that includes growing MJ is a bit impractical, and most likely would not work. Holding the landlord in any way responsible for the clandestine actions of his renter is IMHO a stretch of justice.

Walt

Funny you bring that up George. That's way I had to sell my house.
When the rental agreement was signed, I made it vary clear NO damned growing.
Stupid me!! I took their word on it. I didn't do any "inspections".
They turned half the place into a grow house. The damage was so bad I had to sell. ( at least I got back what I had in the damned thing.)
That's why I don't live in LWW anymore.
I didn't want a grower since it was a nice place, and so were the people all around the place. They were so good, they didn't even bitch to me about it.
I found out from LWW. By that time the damage was done. To this day I'm still
making amends to those fine people for the actions of those bastard tenants.
I take the time to mow their backyards. That's how crappy I feel about what went down.

There is a dose of reality for Paul.
NO property owner should be held accountable for a lying SOB dope grower.
You want to grow? do it on your own land.

Walt

One more thing for silent Paul. Dope growing renters don't give a crap about the property. They make their huge profits, and leave their damage for others to deal with. When the jig is up, they leave, and find another place to set up shop and trash.
First hand experience bub....

Gregory

Walt, I know people who took major losses on rental property from lousy renters who lied to them who didn't grow pot.

Larger security deposits, background checks and actually checking on the property once in awhile helps.

Paul Emery

George

Supporting either option allows police the ability to do enter your property at will. I'm surprised that you accept that. Requesting a total re-write by the BOS would in my opinion be called for in this situation. I'm a bit taken back that you don't take that path to be consistent with your prescribed principals about property rights.

Walt

Agreed Gregory, Like I said. I didn't "inspect". They also "agreed" that they were not going to grow on the premises. They did it anyway.
When I rented they (she) did disclose they used for "medical reasons", and had their grow elsewhere. I have a nasty habit of taking people at their word.
Yup,, stupid me.
A single mom with two kids. ( and a boyfriend) What a heartless bastard I would have been to not rent at the time.
Since I have no property to rent anymore, I won't have to worry about a second time.

Maybe the law should be that if you want to grow MMJ, it's must be on your own property. That I have no problem with.
Why not? They make plenty of money to do just that.

George Rebane

PaulE 1011pm - MJ is not the only reason the county can enter your property at will for non-criminal issues. You have now conveniently brought this conversation to an end by accusing me of not becoming the county's champion of property rights. So be it.

Walt

Got a problem with law enforcement "silent" Paul? Have something to hide?
I guess I'm on Paul's " do not respond" list. ( A common ditch digger has the mighty Paul on the ropes.)
Why shouldn't police do no notice compliance checks? Inspectors show up at mines with no notice, health inspectors show up at any given food joint without a warrant, Again. What makes dope growers special?
Answer THAT if you can.
We haven't even addressed the tax issue on all that money.

Hummmmm I see a letter to the editor in the VARY near future. I'm WAY past due.

Gregory

"MJ is a controlled substance"

It is also legal for some people to grow, possess and consume in this state, and if you want to argue states rights for Bundy in NV, you should back off the no states rights for pot in CA, even if you don't like the CA law.

Someday, I may choose to smoke the stuff, inhaling it down to my toes. My first wife had a pot license written without hesitation by a real and respected local mainstream doctor when she started massive chemotherapies for late stage ovarian cancer, but she didn't want to send mixed messages to our 10 (his age at the start) year old son... but also because our gold plated insurance (thank you, Cisco Systems) paid for all the best and most expensive drugs that worked as well, or better for dealing with the discomforts.

I thought she was crazy, should have enjoyed the moments as much as possible, and that our boy would have no trouble sorting it out, but it was her decision to make.

I fully expect a large majority of medical mj users are malingerers to some extent, but I don't want my tax dollars misused to hassle those that ain't in order to catch a few that are.

Current regs aren't that bad... is S really worse? Walt complains about growers who trashed his rental property but they weren't following the rules in place. I know when I was renting in my relative youth, about the extent of modifications I was allowed by the rental agreements were a few tiny nails to hang pictures, and even in the townhouse/condominimum [sic] we pretended to *own*, the CC&R's specified our ownership of the interior was no deeper than the paint. The walls and wiring were owned in common with the others.

Should a landlord forbid a cancer patient from growing the number of plants allowed them under state law, if they don't damage the house or apartment any more than growing a ficus would?

Bill Tozer

I know someone who told me that LE doesn't just come on your property on a fishing expedition. They have to see it from the street or receive a complaint. Don't know if that is true or not and I have no dog in this fight.
Now, if they see in from the air, then they know pot is being grown at the property. If it appears too large or out of compliance, the compliance patrol comes and issues a fix it ticket. They only ones hauled off to the clink are the dirtbags that have warrants, meth users, repeat offenders, those under probation prohibiting the use of drugs, those in the obvious situation of child endangerment, etc.
Play by the rules and nothing, absolutely nothing to worry about. Have a script, keep the garden within specified footage/number of plants, and make sure it cannot be seen by neighbors or passerbys. At least that was what I was told.

Heck, it's fly over season I reckon cause a whirlybird was flying over my neck of the woods a couple days ago. Last time that happened, I read in The Union about a big bust of over 200 plants (or was it 600 plants?) not too far from my humble abode. And another large bust over the mountain from me. Good. Recreation use of marijuana is not what the voters voted for, neither growing for non medicinal purposes. Let Granny keep her hooch for her ailments, but bust those without a doctor's prescription or who have 50 plants growing over a fence in the front yard, the dummies. They don't really even get busted. They are issued a fix it ticket to bring their medicine farm up to compliance.

the dude that told me the above is what happened to him. The LE were inspecting an out of compliance pot garden (someone complains about the strong skunk smell) and the cops looked over at his property while there and saw he had like 16 plants too many and was given a week or so to bring it into compliance. They did not just pick his property at random like Paul makes it sound like. Now, when the Feds and the State and sheriffs and chp and forest service come knocking all at one time, you know for certain they ain't there to willy-nilly check on grannie's medicine.

Mr. Paul, of course you know that song with the lyrics "paranoia runs deep, into you life it will creep, it's starts when you are always afraid, step out of line and the man will come and take you away." Life is too short for paranoia. Keep medicinal herb in compliance and sleep better at night, but watch out for them patch pirates and home invasion types. They ain't no flower children.

Paul Emery

Well George you certainly lowered your flag on this one. It's too bad you're squeamish about continuing this conversation. It is always difficult to grasp our own hypocrisy bet hey that's how we grow, You've superficially done that to me a few times.

Paul Emery

that's surely done that to me a few times. Spell checking is a flawed dependency for a careless typist.

Walt

Paul needs to quit while he's still way behind.
Nut guts to answer the pointed questions? So who's "property rights" trumps who's? The renter, or the land owner?
Now is a great time to do what your famous for..... Change the subject, and answer questions with more questions.
Your silence is golden.
The real hypocrite is YOU. Take a good look at Colorado. Full blown legalization, and people are winding up dead because of it. Is that what you want here?
Your silence is SO telling.( coward)

Gregory

It's easy, Walt. If the growing is legal, and not forbidden by contract, the renter can grow.

Your problem was a lying and destructive tenant.

Perhaps it would work if the county mounties would keep a registry for landlords who do NOT give permission, express or implied.

Michael R. Kesti

George Rebane 1Sep14 06:01 PM

"In your opinion how closely have we achieved your ideals of regulating and legalizing marijuana with 2349 in Nevada County?"

2349 so completely misses the mark that I am somewhat surprised you would ask the question.

Bill Tozer

Seems to me that Measure S is not even the issue here. What is the real issue appears to be is full blown legalization of marijuana for any reason. Until that time, many will be unhappy with Measures S-Z and then can we discuss States' Rights. Right now CA is exercising its States Rights in defiance of Federal Law, but it ain't good enough for some. From what I perceive from out my window is more and more young people are just not that into pot after a few years.

Bill Tozer

Perhaps the real underlining issue here is unrestricted marijuana cultivation in our neck of the woods, which is already happening in various parts of our county in areas zoned for timber or agriculture as the primary use.

George Rebane

PaulE 1139pm - I have testified in front of the BoS on property rights issues countless times for years. I am also on perpetual record on RR re my thoughts on property rights. I would venture to say that every supervisor (save perhaps the new one from Truckee) knows and has known Rebane's beliefs about property rights. I would bet that none of them know yours.

But you did what you have so often done here. You call someone a hypocrite in a broad area, and leave it at that. What is my hypocrisy? Just because I don't start a campaign on everything I promote as a commentator is little cause to go ad hominem. I have pointed out the moot points and red herrings of arguments, and yet you persist without further evidence - that's why this conversation has stopped.

Again IMHO, Measure S does not provide the marginal benefit to the community of growing marijuana, which I have long believed should be legalized and regulated. If 2349 is not suitable, then a better one should be promoted.

Gregory

"The real hypocrite is YOU. Take a good look at Colorado. Full blown legalization, and people are winding up dead because of it. Is that what you want here?" -Walt challenging Paul E.

Given the number of people getting drunk and dying because of it, perhaps that needs to be made illegal, too. If someone gets inebriated on anything and then drives, and drives unsafely, the problem is the driver. Especially if the driver is young and male with no sense of how badly they drive on a good day and poor impulse control even when not loaded.

"A Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation study used the roadside survey and data from nine states that test more than 80% of drivers killed in crashes. When adjusted for alcohol and driver demographics, the study found that otherwise sober drivers who tested positive for marijuana were slightly less likely to have been involved in a crash than drivers who tested negative for all drugs."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/01/marijuana-drivers-accidents-alcohol-effect-law-use

Walt

Correct Gregory, "IF" the landlord knows, and agrees is one thing. Seems Paul
thinks said tenant should be able to keep that secret from the landlord.
One the whole, this isn't about someone growing one or two plants for personal use. That's no big deal. It's those that "claim" it's for personal use, and grow as much as they can get away with, if not more. Use what they " need" and sell the rest. There lies the rub.
Maybe ALL growers should register with the cops. It's not much different than me having to register my hand guns, or cars.

George Rebane

MichaelK 622am - Well yes, I do surprise a lot of people, perhaps that is the draw of RR ;-) But that aside, it's hard (at least for me) to read your mind. Pray tell what is the "mark" that 2349 "misses", and presumably S does a better job of hitting?

As I restate in my 814am, "Again IMHO, Measure S does not provide the marginal benefit to the community of growing marijuana, which I have long believed should be legalized and regulated. If 2349 is not suitable, then a better one should be promoted."

Walt

Gregory.. ( and Paul) Search "Colorado pot deaths".
The latest entry is today.....
It's a little more involved that stoned driving.

Gregory

"Seems Paul thinks said tenant should be able to keep that secret from the landlord."

Some landlords are easier to fool than others, but sadly, both landlords and renters have been telling lies since the first cave was leased by a Neanderthal to an immigrant Cro-Magnon.

*Every* lease agreement I ever signed forbid the sort of modifications needed to turn a house into a pot farm despite pot grows being a non issue, in the days one suspected plant could result in the door being broken down.

Brad

One of the provisions of the current ordinance that I think needs to be changed is the ridiculous setback requirements surrounding setbacks from bus stops.
What does a bus stop have to do with anything? It just seems to be a way to harass producers based on a "Reefer Madness" type paranoia. It is as if the supes/cops envision growers standing outside their properties trying to entice school kids to fire up a doob while they are waiting for the bus. I think growers want to be more discreet rather than less discrete. I think "S" decreases the setback distance. Not a big deal in my mind. I like "S" so far. I don't think "S" is asking for that much.

Paul Emery

Greg

There are official bus stops and ad hoc ones that change each year. According to ASA the sheriff has never provided a list. The reg says 1000' from any bus stop and the sheriff does use the ad hoc stops as a justification for a visit.

For various reasons I don't support either measure but "s" is better and very similar to Yuba County.

George

Quite simply support fir either measure allows police searches on any property without a criminal search warrant. Support for either measure supports that process which in my view is a violation of property rights. A code inspection is easy to get because it does not involve criminal violations. Having the sheriff enforce these codes really opens up virtually all property in the County to inspection on a whim with no documentation or evidence.

Bill Tozer

Brad, to repeat, I don't have a dog in this fight and I realize that you were not addressing me. Just passing along information.
When this issue was a hot topic last time and the BOS's chambers were swamped, Mr. Paul posted a link to the existing ordinance. I copied that link and saved it as a short cut on my old computer so I could be knowledgable about all the fuss and gnashing of teeth was about. That computer went to E-waste heaven.
I must have read the preamble at least 5 times as to the purpose and reasonings behind the ordinance in general AND the purposes of setbacks specifically. Very informative and common sense if you ask me. LE's concerns were addressed. Like it might be too much temptation for a 14 year old kid to see pot plants near his school bus stop, thus the potential for the kid to grab some bud and perhaps even get hurt by the grower, not to mention committing an act of theft or the school's zero tolerance policies (my paraphrase only), Other safety concerns about home invasions which effect the grower's and community's health and safety. LE still does the "to protect and serve" motto. The preamble addressed concerns of next door neighbors as well who suffer from smell pollution and nuisances, now matter how much that got pooh- poohed by the crowd. I read the preamble as law enforcement's concerns being addressed as well as the rights of growers and non growers living next door as well.

With the above said, I realized that within the actual ordinance, set backs would make it darn near impossible to grow outdoors if you live in tiny houses packed side by side like on some of the streets in our downtowns. Heck, some of those old gold rush cabins/homes don't even have a driveway, going back to the hitching the horse in the front days. Guess most any 3 digit address would not be the place to grow outdoors because of property line setbacks on the side yards, not to mention from the residence in the back. Neither are gated communities a good place to grow.

Still am confused as to what exactly is a translucent fence. Guess corrugated fiberglass panels might be, but they are closer to opaque, IMHO. Does not seem reasonable that a thick hedge is not a fence since some hedges are almost impossible to penetrate and it's much easier to cut thru chain link or pry open a couple boards of a wooden dog eared fence for us with the criminal minds. Did agree 100% that detached indoor grows should have good electrical wiring, not an extension cord running across the back 40 rain or shine. That in and of itself could save lives and prevent fires.

Long ramble to say check out the preamble to the ordinance to see why setbacks were instituted.

Michael R. Kesti

GeorgeR 2Sep14 08:50 AM

The mark that 2349 misses is, to use your words, my "ideals of regulating and legalizing marijuana." I was fairly certain that you were referring to my statement, "All that remains to complete the parallels is to legalize and regulate marijuana in exactly the way we do alcohol."

Bill Tozer

And, Mr. Brad, one would hope growers are discrete as it is in their best interests to do so. I would argue that nobody cares about their crop more than the grower himself. I would also argue that not everybody has your mindset and thus we have laws. If dumbasses did not exist, there would be no need for laws prohibiting rape or muderer of robbery to even exist on the books.

Walt

No Paul, police searches of drug grows is NOT a property rights violation. Warrant or not.
Just like they can come to MY property to "inspect" my shooting aria to see if I'm doing it safely. If someone close by bitchs about gun fire, they pretty good "probable cause". The same goes for the smell of a pile of dead skunks.
How well does telling them "get a warrant" fly? Enjoy the SWAT "inspection".

I had the "G" man pay me a visit because of my backyard 2ND Amendment right.
( I read the county ordinance before the first shot was fired, and made sure I was within the rules) Did I get a phone call first before they showed up? ( I'll give you one guess) Upon arrival I knew full well what they were here for before they got out of the car. " Come on back and have a look! Here are the weapons I use back here."
Since I was well within the county "ordinance" ( playing by the rules) I got a clean bill of health.
Yet the guy next door isn't so lucky. Not enough setbacks per the rules.
Is his "rights" being infringed?
Tell me again how the pot growers are getting a raw deal with the existing laws.

Brad

Bill, thanks. I did not read any comments, only added my own opinion to the mix.
Looking at the 'purpose' of the existing ordinance, it is trying to "save" us (nanny state?) from becoming the next Menocino. Really? I thought we were already on par with Humboldt and Mendocino. I have no way of telling though.
By the way, I think 3 digit addresses are exempt from this ordinance since they are within city limits.

Paul Emery

First of all Brad all my references to pot growers are to those growing within the State guidelines. Simplified that means 6 plants per person with a legitimate "recommendation" as described by state law. Those growers are not in violation of State law therefore cannot be charged even if they are not in ""compliance" with county codes. The state allow collective grows and it goes something like this. A grower can grow for others with a "recommendation" and receive due compensation for time and materials involved in the grow.


For example if a grower has 6 recommendations and they are displayed in the garden they can grow 36 mature plants. That process is consistent with State law and not illegal. If someone grows 36 plants with no recommendations they are in violation of State law and can be criminally charged.

The NC ordinance does not allow growers the room to grow those plants because of restrictions of garden size. Yuba County changed their ordinance to accommodate. This has not created a great problem so why not Nevada County?

The Feds are not interested in small growers only plantations especially on public land.

Essentially what the Ordinance does of give the police freedom to romp through neighborhoods with only "code" warrants to see what people are up to. They can the return with Criminal warrants based on their observations.

You must see the danger in this arbitrary use of police power. By the way, normally police do not enforce code violations . Only in Nevada County because the BOS passed special resolution . They can and according to some persons do use the ordinance to gain access to property they want to examine for other reasons.

I cringe every time the Sheriff asks for more "tools" to do their job. We have a good Sheriff but whomever occupies that chair in the future will have the same tool belt.

Paul Emery

That was for Bill

Walt

Define "just compensation" Paul. The whole idea behind the state law was to take away the huge profits. UUmmm That didn't happen. I don't see any accountability of "product" to the one who's recommendation it was grown under.

For the sake of argument ( one sided at best) If I have someone grow me ten plants, how in hell do I know I get ALL of it? How do I know if an ounce or two per plant wasn't "skimmed"? ( for profitable reasons)
Do I get a copy of the water bill, and pay "my fair share"? What's the going rate for labor? ( You know,, "just compensation")
My ex-Brother-inlaw raked in the bucks growing "other people's pot".

As I see it there is no oversight of this by anyone, yet you don't want inspections like any other "business" that may be subject to.

LIBS complain of "Wall St. greed".. But Dope grower greed is fine and dandie.

Bonnie McGuire

Lots of discussion here that brings to mind what a county inspector told me several years ago..."Just about everything is against the law. We don't really care unless someone complains..."

George Rebane

The discussion so far has grown wide and varied. And I can't see us circling in on an ordinance that has any semblance of consensus behind it. The prime reason again is that all participants have their own definition of what constitutes a 'good ordinance' (i.e. more formally, their own individual utility functions for growing marijuana). So what is passionately and obviously good for one may be abhorrent and even evil for another. No possibility to come to comprehending the other's POV, let alone a mutual understanding. I have discussed the basis for this many times in the past, here's one -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/11/why-reason-fails.html

My only conclusion why we persist in this form of 'communal reasoning' is that it must be fun for each of us to lecture others from our own comfortable but obscure Pedestal of Truth and Logic.

Were we to get serious about drafting a more acceptable MJ ordinance, we would begin by laying out what are the attributes of a good ordinance, and seeing if we could all accept such a set of attributes (utility or objective function) before starting craft/debate individual rules. Then we could all see whether/how a proposed rule satisfies the attributes. This is what the big kids do in business when there is serious money at stake. Otherwise it's all posturing and politics. Will the sun ever rise on such a day when we really can reason together? No breath being held here - carry on.

Brad

My feeling is that the emergency ordinance was fear-based, and that "S" is an attempt to bring it into a more reasonable space.
For those anti-NH2020 NIMBY types among us, it sure seems like everybody is spending too much time trying to control what goes on in other people's backyards, especially now that we have our new event ordinance.

Walt

Want an idea of how many grows may be near you? Google Earth will enlighten you.
You can't miss them. ( the outdoor crops at least) Even greenhouses stick out like a sore *utthole.
Nice circles of green spaced out equally in large clearings.
Once you take a look just around the County, one could believe every resident of the county has a "script".

Walt

Not even close in comparison Brad.

Paul Emery

Walt

Do you have any problem with the free market determining just compensation for labor?

Also many growers legitimately grow for dispensaries as well as individuals , allowable under State law. They become members and providers of the collective that sponsors the dispensary. Remember, this is legal under State law. Nevada County growers are not given enough square footage to participate. These are examples of legally permitted commerce that brings in millions of $ to legitimate growers in our county. We are not talking about 2000 plant cartels but small operations that have the skill and craft to grow 20-40 plants distributed and compensated for legally under California State Law.

Our heavy handed BOS went for the hammer on this
rather than crafting an Ordinance that supports cultivation for what it is-a legitimate cottage industry under California State law that provides income for hundreds of families adding millions to Nevada Counties economy.

Paul Emery

George

I would be open to engaging in such a process with you -2:09

Michael R. Kesti

Paul, I agree with your sentiment concerning current and future's sheriffs wearing the same tool belt. In the same way, the federal laws concerning marijuana must be revoked before anything meaningful can happen at the state level because, while this administration is willing to look the other way concerning marijuana, future administrations may not.

Paul Emery

Michael

Actually reform on this matter is largely being led by Conservatives. Tom McClintock is co-sponsor of HR 5326 which would de fund the DEA from enforcing Federal law in states that have Medical Marijuana laws. He was a guest on KVMR where he strongly supported that view. It was on a program hosted by Patricia Smith who is heading up the "yes on S" campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/30/dea-medical-marijuana-house-vote_n_5414679.html

George Rebane

Re MichaelK's 313pm - Ditto on the concern about future sheriffs (and even BoSs) as I expressed in several comments on police militarization (most recent here)- http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/08/silence-of-the-lambs.html?cid=6a00e54f86f2ad883301b8d060fa8e970c#comment-6a00e54f86f2ad883301b8d060fa8e970c

PaulE 303pm - Great! Let me start a new post on that and throw my hat into the ring with a few specifics. That should be fun and educational.

Bill Tozer

Mr. Paul. Seems like we can't gave it both ways. The State law passed by the voters kicked the ball down to the Counties to enforce/supervise it. Not unusual as the Feds pass laws that the States have to enforce/monitor every year. Then states pass laws that counties are stuck with doing the dirty work. Now, which department is best suited to do the dirty work? Send little 98 pound clerks unarmed out beyond the highways and byways to do follow up on aerial surveillance?

So, we want the State law as written, but don't like the county enforcement or interpretation. Why not? Local control and all that jazz after local hearings and some fine tuning. And all this chatter diverts use farther and farther away from Granny's cancer medicine, which was the spirit and purpose and sole selling point of Prop 215 or whatever number the medicinal only legal grass was voted on.

Walt

It called oversight Paul, a drug is a drug. This was never meant to be a max profit enterprise. Somehow that got shoved to the side.
There were a few programs on the boob tube showing the inner workings of the MJ operations. " Marijuana wars" was just one. BIG mistake. Those "documentaries"
showed just how corrupt the game is. Tens of thousands of dollars is far from "just compensation".
It's not that expensive or time consuming to grow weeds. I know. Been there done that. I have grown a plant or two in my time. The one thing I have never done is sell ANY of it. That was a line I just wasn't going to cross.

The law was NEVER intended to be "for profit". But that's exactly what has happened.
Now you can answer the rest of those questions.
In my opinion the illegitimate growers outnumber the legit. I have seen plenty in my travels around this county. I know of one right now that must be growing over 1000 plants not far from here. They have been doing so for years.

The legit growers need to start policing their own, and deal with the rifraf.

We took our dog to the park this morning. And right by the kids playground a couple were toking away as their kids played feet away. They tried to hide the pipe as we came by.( too damned late ) Think THEY had a script? ( for a nose piercing infection I'm sure.) And No... I didn't drop a dime on them as I should have. ( right in front of the kids?? REALLY???)

Paul Emery

Walt

A well crafted ordinance would easily separate the legit growers from the others. The others would be subject to state law and the consequences of the hammer of law. The legits would be able to supply legitimate patients and dispensaries with what they need and be compensated for it. The current ordinance makes virtually everyone aviolator therefore encouraging illegitimate growers because what the hell,they are all violators anyway.

Mendicino passed an ordinance a few years ago that looked pretty good and ws embraced by the whole community. The feds came in ant threatened the Supes with criminal charges and they had to suspend it. Under McClntocks sponsorship if passed they would not be able to do that.

Government is a craft and the NC BOS and Sheriff can do a whole lot better.

Most of the operations on Marijuana Wars were illegal under State law therefore not part of an enlightened discussion on grows legitimate under State Law

Walt

Consider me a reformed "smoker". ( yaa, we are really the worst)
I still have my expired scripts in my wallet. A "legit" condition? Yup,, an "F"ed up back. Now get this. Since I stopped that "medication" my back doesn't hurt as bad, and my refrigerator reload bill has gone down.

Maybe now I can stop trying to find work from the bottom feeders of the contractor world, ( those that don't drug test) and get back to meaningful employment. In my line of work, a Dr,'s recommendation doesn't give you a pass.
Especially in mining.

Walt

"A well crafted ordinance would easily separate the legit growers from the others" Well,, there has been PLENTY of time. How come it hasn't been done?
Then again, good luck enforcing that, since you don't like compliance inspections as stated above. You can't have it both ways.
If the legit growers had done that by now, there may have been some credibility.
I knew if I gave you enough (hemp) rope, you would hang yourself.

Bill Tozer

Aha! Walt you stole my thunder. Granny's medicine has absolutely nothing to do with millions of dollars floating around the local economy nor the employment of hundreds of families or cottage industries. Those by- products should not even be considered when thinking of all the sick dying patients we have here in the County.

Let's drop the charade, shall we? Growing dope is a big big source cash in Nevada County and had been since the Guide to Gorilla Growing came out in the late 60's, duh. All the long term growers here have been praying for the day when they could come out of the shadows and finally be declared legit with one stroke of the Governor's pen. All the old hippies and young folks with kids longed for the day where they could be legal and not hide plants growing in the basement under little Johnnie's room and feel that uneasy frightening twinge on the back of their necks and sudden heart rate increase each time a police car turned down the street for an unrelated matter. Growers want to be called legit, plain and simple. Same with potheads who smoke their wacky tobaccy.

But, the devil is in the details. Patients who need to make marijuana skin lotion or marijuana bath soap can still do it, but the illegal growers can not continue to grow as they have been accustomed to and become in compliance with the setbacks. Neither does the county ordinance allow them to continue in the lifestyle of a good payday they have enjoyed for years. Heck,dreams of finding a legal visible means of support were dashed. Brings a tear to my eye.

The darn truth is most of the new dispensaries do not buy from our local yokels anymore, with human nature being what it is. They figured out they can get 99 plants scripts, get a business partner with another script, grow in huge greenhouses out the back door and sell their product legally over the counter of the "dispensary" out the front door. That is how to become legit. Big business with a big business bent. But not in this county. Prices are dropping and locals are sending their harvest product out of state, any state to off it. There are business men going around grows in the foothills buying up pot for $850 a pound from folks who can't find buyers. Dog eat dog world. I don't smoke the stuff nor grow it or sell it, but I know what is happening where the rubber meets the road.

And absolutely nothing above has one friggin thing to do with helping the chronically ill deal with pain.

Paul Emery

Walt

There is no incentive for legit growers to volunteer their information because they are all virtually out of compliance because of the sq foot requirements of the current ordinance that does not allow them to grow enough to meet their legitimate, legal demands.

In Mendicino legit growers did just that and paid a fee for the right to grow legitimately like any business. It was embraced by the growers but ended when the Feds stepped in.

"Covelo, California, Jul 7, 2010: The DEA flouted Mendocino County’s newly enacted medical marijuana cultivation ordinance by raiding the first collective that had applied to the sheriff’s cultivation permit program.

A multi-agency federal task force descended on the property of Joy Greenfield, 68, the first Mendo patient to pay the $1050 application fee under the ordinance, which allows collectives to grow up to 99 plants provided they comply with certain regulations."

Thisw could change under McClintocks leadership,

http://theava.com/archives/7475

Walt

Bill,, "the growers" really don't want it legalized. The bottom would fall out of the price. Especially when anyone and their brother could grow their own, be it in the back yard or on the back deck.

In my lifetime, I probably have smoked your weight, plus mine, plus El Gordo's.
I'm no choir boy, so I have a pretty good idea of the subject of weed.

Dose it have some benefits? for some yes. But don't "Colorado" Nevada Co.
NOOO!!,, On S.. Put that on a bumper sticker. Just give me a dime for every one
sold. ( copyright ?)

Brad

It will be interesting to see which way the voters will go in states with legalization legislation on the ballots this fall.
I believe Oregon has not bothered with the "co-operative" and "non-profit" restrictions with regard to their dispensaries.

As per usual, California has way over-regulated the marijuana industry.

It may still be illegal according to the Feds, but the House does not want them harassing state governments about it.

http://blog.norml.org/2014/05/30/us-house-votes-to-prohibit-doj-from-interfering-with-state-medical-marijuana-or-industrial-hemp-programs/

Walt

Paul. "S" isn't going give one more ounce of "legitimacy".
I know full well legit growers DO like to stay within the law.
I DO know that some have requested "compliance checks" and got them without
getting harassed later on. So quit trying to blow smoke up our collective skirts.
( that one's for Bill)

Walt

Can the spellin' police please pay Paul a visit? I recall the raid on me
not long ago.

Barry Pruett

Paul: Do you have link to the Mendicino ordinance? That would an interesting read.

Bill Tozer

Hey, it was the Big Boys in the green triangle of Humbolt, Mendiciino, and another 2 bit county that first sounded the alarm with opposition to legalized Mary Jane in Ca. They said it would kill their business and wreck their local economies. Growers here as well bitch about the same thing and more than one are getting out. When the price of trimmed bud goes from $3300.00 to 1,500 clams/lbs in just a few short years, what does that tell ya. Oh, cry me a river.

Heck, if you are going to grow, then just grow it. Forget getting silly medical cards and shove compliance and go for it if that is what you are inclined to do.
Paul is right. I looked up the existing ordinance just this morning. My zoning is A, not A-R, not R. 10-20 acres on this hunk of dirt. 300 foot setback from closest neighbor's building. Allowed 600 square feet to grow pot if I choose, only 400 sq. feet if the property is 9.9 acres. Hmm. 20'x30' for 10 plus acres in my zoning? 20'x20' for 9.9 acres and a lot less if the zoning was A-R or R. 36 Sq feet is enough to grow 6 small trees, but why bother? Heck, if I had it in my mind to grow some medicine for mom or pops, I would have to throw Momma from the train. For me it is a non issue and Moi hasn't drawn a big long inhale from the hukka in 25 years, give or toke (pun intended).

Like I said, screw it and go for the gusto. No need for a silly script or worrying about silly square footage. The growers never had a script in the past and they were real men and women, unlike these pansy organic Polly Annas we have today. Heck, there are guys with dozers right now dredging and running heavy equipment in riverbeds getting gold behind locked gates out in the boondocks as I write this. They said screw it and I
I can't blame them, but it is soooo fun to judge!
Mr. Walt, don't Bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to Paul.
Time for Dr. Rebane to write another post about the tobacco enema.

Walt

"don't Bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to Paul"
Your right. I think he's in desperate need after this little discussion.
Joints are a waste of weed. Too much goes into thin air, and air quality is effected. A good pipe is the only way to conserve the good stuff.

Walt

"Heck, there are guys with dozers right now dredging and running heavy equipment in riverbeds getting gold behind locked gates out in the boondocks as I write this" WHERE??? Maybe they can use some help!

Walt

Looks like it's time to nail the lid of this stash box of a thread shut Doc..
It's pretty much "roached" out. ( some toker terminology)
On to bigger and better things.
Like the 20 or so missing passenger jets in Libya. ( and just before the 11TH no less.)

Bill Tozer

Agreed. This topic always leaves me feeling dry and gives me a bad case of cottonmouth. Besides, we have this income inequality thang spreading like a bad rash across the globe and it's all the employers fault. Little ones are going to bed hungry tonight in the rat infested slums of Calcutta and some anal cavities with chainsaws and elephants are ripping up the rain forests. Not to mention the cute little polar bear cubs unable to break through the hardened Arctic Ice and get themselves an adorable little seal pup to munch on.
At least a couple of mountain lion cubs were rescued from under a burning log in Western Montana. Wonder if that new military Hellcat they got was involved? Always a silver lining. Silver lining? That term is still ok to use I believe. Haven't heard much from the speech police emitting from them Gray Panthers lately. Probably sucking down a bottle of Geritol with a prune juice chaser right about now. Which reminds me....nightly night..

Walt

One or two more things for Paul to contemplate where landlords are concerned.
Asset forfeiture. When the man come knock'n because the grow is WAY out of compliance, they usually seize the real estate. The land owner has no recourse.
Ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Now let me help you understand something. "Just compensation" would be a couple of hundred bucks per. Not a couple of hundred thousand.
Next time remember the entirety of the law. Not just the parts you like.
The compassionate use act was billed as " non profit" Please look up the definition of that.
You should know by now I do my best to deal in the facts of matters. That hasn't been one of your strong suits. "Feelings" and what "should be" doesn't cut it.
Remember what "O" said when running for Prez the first time? He was going to leave states like Ca. alone that have MMJ laws on the books. He would instruct the DOJ to do just that. LIBS took the bait hook line and sinker. The sicked the dogs on Ca. Property seizers, asset forfeitures up and down the state. They didn't even bother with incarceration. They had what they wanted. The money and property.
Just a little reminder of why "S" stands for "sucks". ( for landlords) They have the most to lose.

OK Doc.,,, Drive home the last nail.

Paul Emery

Barry

I'll see if I can find one.

Walt, Bill

The shear magnitude and passion of your expostulations seems to mean you prefer the criminalization of MJ. Find How much are you willing to spend to enforce your mandate?

Brad

Not sure about the argument that prices will go down if the weed is legalized.
There is (or was) a price list from a Colorado weed shop on the window of an attorney's office directly across from the NC courthouse. The Colorado prices are higher than they are here (so I am told:).
Laissez faire, US out of my woodlot and exhaust pipe, states rights believers should be in full support of legalization.

Walt

Paul. I think I have already paid the price (personally) for the existing "legalization". It appears it you that is "willing" to drive up "the costs." ( No compliance enforcement what so ever)
There is PLENTY of weed for anyone who wants it. A walk down Main St. and you can sniff it out. Pick any local park. The blue haze will guide the way.

Full blown legalization isn't the answer. Colorado is finding that out.
Even laws for "free weed" to the homeless.( and top shelf no less) have popped up.
I believe you more pro black market economy than anything else.

George Rebane

Walt 835pm - you may be right, but it is really you the commenters who pound in the last nail. I will raise the topic again closer to election time after more water has passed under the bridge. In the interval I invite all readers to join PaulE and me in the task of defining a workable utility or objective function for evaluating and/or crafting a broadly acceptable MJ ordinance. (Ref my 209pm and PaulE's 303pm.)

Bill Tozer

Good morning Paul. First, I would like to take this time to thank Joann Rebane for her work on this issue which brings clarity.

I feel Prop 215 is not the vehicle to legalize marijuana nor the cultivation of marijuana for recreation use. Neither are these 2 bit county ordinances. As Mr. Paul pointed out, illegal grows will remain illegal grows. Illegal grows are in it solely for the money, and with a wink and a nod, give lip service to compassion. Too many winks and nods going on. I oppose abuse of Prop 215.
Three things pop out immediately about Measure S I find troubling.
1). Growing in business parks. A cultivator can rent a big warehouse and alter the lighting and pack it full far from residences, traffic, and prying eyes. exactly what the Big Boys in Colorado are doing. One big non-greenhouse concrete building free from aerial survilance with 4-5 digit monthly power bills. Yep, it's for compassionate cultivation. Wink wink.

2). This allowance for TENNANTS (including single family homes) to alter the plumbing and electrical wiring without notifing the landlord is plumb Unconstitutional and will never pass the Constitutional test. Our Constitution says that government cannot interfere with a contact between two private parties. They cannot stick their snout into the contract. Get out of there, knucklehead, it says clearly.
I know this for a fact. Assuming the prohibitions are spelled out in the landlord-tennant agreement, no little two bit BOS can alter that or even look at the agreement.
Had a landlord friend of mine that had a tenant up for renewal of a use permit. The BOS wanted to see the lease agreement. My friend went up there and told them no way, Jose, you can't see it and go pound sand. It is none of your beeswax and kiss my ass. The BOS or any small town Big Bro can not interfere with a private contract between two parties.
ALTERING ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL WIRING WITHOUT NOTIFING THE LANDLORD?????!!! We are taking some bucks here. This ain't painting the kitchen. Hope they use a license electrical contractor with proper permits and inspections. A lot of bucks for a little teenie indoor garden. Another wink and a nod.

3). Measure S specifies the rights of the compassionate cultivator supersedes the rights of adjoining residences and neighbors. Hmmm, not very neighborly. Think I will start working on chainsaws every night around 3am cause my rights suspercede the neighbors' rights. It's ALL about me now isn't it. Think there are laws on the books saying I can't poison my own darn well if I wanted to. My rights are being violated!!! Another wink and a nod.

Walt

Paul still has yet to address in any shape or form,the non profit provisions of the existing law.Why not?

Paul Emery

The institutions are non profit. That doesnt mean the product they distribute to members is free.

Paul Emery

Here's more info about reimbursement fo providers.

Under state law, the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Prop. 215) patients and their "primary caregivers" are protected from criminal prosecution under state law for personal possession and cultivation of marijuana, but NOT for distribution or sale to others. State law was expanded in 2004 by a new law, Senate Bill 420 (Health & Safety Code 11362.7-8). Among other things, SB 420 authorized patient "cooperatives" or "collectives" to grow, distribute and/or sell medical marijuana on a non-profit basis to their members. It also allows duly designated primary caregivers who consistently attend to patients' needs to charge for their labor and services in providing marijuana.

http://www.canorml.org/prop/collectivetips.html

RL Crabb

After Governor Jerry made his now-famous statement that a stoned out populace might not be in California's best interests, Local Facebook Freaks went ballistic. "I guess he don't remember the stuff he did when he lived up on the Ridge" was the most frequent comment, disproving the notion that mary-j messes with your memory. Then again, maybe they were hallucinating.
And warehouse marijuana can't hold a candle to natural outdoor homegrown. Uh, at least that's what they tell me. I never inhaled.

Walt

Institutions??? Just WHO or what is that?Step back and away from the bong. No one is supposed to make a profit.From the grower on down.What is going on now FAR exceeds your"just compensation".

Walt

This isn't SBC we are talking about....Paul...

Bill Tozer

Mr. Crabb, interesting debate going on in the growing world. Kinda like real organic greenies vs the unnatural greenies. An indoor garden can produce 24/7 365 days a year so it has a distinct advantage. Plus, a knowledgable indoor grower can produce a more potent strain under lights than an outdoor grower can with experience and adjustments. Natural pests are not an issue. Indoor growers are called unnatural organic greenies in this scenario.

the outdoor grower boasts than he/she uses God's sunshine, no fossil fuel carbon producing electricity nor contributes to Global Warming. The real organic greenies in this scenario.
So, it's come down to indoor vs outdoor and boasting rights. Read that even some state (WA or CO or somewhere) is trying to pass a bill that gives preference to the outdoor natural organic real greenies to combat the advantages of the unnatural organic unreal greenies growing indoors at dispensaries. Locally grown, but is it indoors or outdoors? Earth friendly or Earth unfriendly? I report, you decide.

Next time I hear some plant worshiper quote the Bible and say God said all plants are good and for the benefit for mankind, I will tell them to go smoke some poison oak or some oleander bush. Them greenies are becoming militant. They need to puff on a big fat hooter and veg out on some organic munchies, IMHO.

Brad

George 855AM,

If you look at the stated purpose of "S",

"Replace current code w new language; halt
diversion of medical MJ to illicit drug market;
ensure qualified patients can grow or obtain MJ
for medical purposes; set guidelines for
cultivation, distribution, transportation, storage
& use of MJ"

I find that a reasonable purpose.

But, if you look at the "implied" purpose, you are left wondering whose thoughts/biases/fears you are being treated to.
For example, who said the current ordinance was enacted to "save us from a fate worse than Mendocino"? Did our sheriff or supervisors say that?
Why use words/phrases such as "weaken" regs? The ordinance was enacted somewhat hurriedly, and is not set it in stone. If opponents can prove that, for example, reducing the setback from bus stops from 1000 to 600 feet endangers somebody, or allowing a few more plants to be grown on a given size parcel is that big a deal, then I would say let's look at it. Is the bus stop setback in place to keep our teenagers waiting at the bus stop honest? Teenagers will find trouble to get into wherever they roam.

Measure S seems to be making a few tweaks to the current ordinance. More tweaks may follow.


Bill Tozer

Why no fences? I heard a rumor (now this is just an unfounded rumor) that there are creatures in these parts called deer that enjoy munching on the Marihuana plant as well as the little woman's roses. Just a rumor, mind you.

If one was so inclined to grow medicine in these parts, I would think that having deer fencing would be wise, if those creatures known as deer actually exist in this neck of the woods.

Perhaps the patient cannot afford to build a fence or is just too stoned to get off their sickly arses and slap some old boards laying about together. Have you seen the price of nails lately? Think wisdom would call for not giving them rumored deer unfettered access to the precious medicine. Maybe it's rutting season for the patients and that would explain the no fences clause. Priorities and all....

Bill Tozer

Want was I thinking?? I forget one does not need a fence with gallons of coyote urine available at the local nursery. Dump a few 55 gallons drums of coyote urine around the perimeter of one's abode and flower patch and the rumored deer ( if they actually even exist).....and the rumored deer would be the last of your problems.

As Kermit the Frog once lamented, "it's not easy being green."

Paul Emery

Walt

I've done the best I can to show you how under current law Marijuana cultivation is a legitimate cottage industry. Any more questions?

Walt

There is a grower I know of who's "facility" is a detached 2 car garage.
His " just compensation" for that little "enterprise" is 100,000 grand a year.
Maybe Paul can tell us how that fits with the law about "non profit".
Think his power bill is that "high"? His NID bill?
I'm pretty sure that's tax free income. " Non profit status...." Right Paul?

If us miners have to play by the rules to make an honest living,( like any other business) the same should apply to growers.

Paul Emery

It's the dispensaries that are non profits, not the producers. That is established California law.

Walt

A "legitimate" industry as you claim has to follow regulations. That means inspections, compliance, and accountability. What makes your weed "industry" any different than any other drug manufacturer/supplier?
That you just won't address in any detail. And falling back on keeping off the FEDS radar isn't going to cut it. If your taking money, books need to be kept just like anyone else.
But you don't want ANY of that.... I bet most MMJ "growers" don't claim that income at tax time. ( I wonder why?)

Bill Tozer

Ok, one last crack at this before heading out. You and those you associate with may live on some altruistic plane, but I can assure you that those who cultivated before the passage of Prop 215 to supplement their income and continue to do so to this day do not.
I think you are naive. For the small grower 215 just gave them legal status to get high. For those whose lion's share of income derives from growing AND selling the marihuana flower to the highest bidder, they don't give a hoot about medicinal purposes, unless they can sell it to a dispensary.
All you are proposing is removing/weakening the enforcement mechanism and doing it with gusto. Walt said it best. Your intentions may be honorable, but your actions promote the black market and promote its growth with little to no consequences.

Walt

Well HEELLLL!!! Then sign me up! Give me a fist full of scripts to "fill".
I got just the spot, plenty of water. I probably still have a couple of real special seeds rolling around in an old stash box somewhere. ( That stuff would make you forget your way home, and even your own name.) I could use the free money.
Like Great, Great, GREAT Grand Daddy said back in the revolutionary war.
" If you can't beet'm,, join'm." ( he was a red coat officer with Cornwallis)

Who's the local MJ attorney to keep Johnny law off my back? ( nevermind... I have a pretty good one already)

Where in the law is the guarantee I won't wind up a felon? I like my gun ownership rights. Or is that one thing I can count on losing? ( can't have everything,,, right??)

Just like I had to give up my MMJ card to work. The "law" didn't protect me there. ( discrimination?)

Paul Emery

I agree it's pretty screwed up Walt but change is coming. Nevada County is missing out on a goldmine if they don't get ahead of the trend and position themselves for the total legalization that is in the works. The Feds will have a tax process worked out in a year or so so legitimate growers can be on the books. Its snowballing right now Here are the some polls
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

And just for laughs Bill O'Reillys poll-89%


http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/265651/speedreads-bill-oreilly-took-a-poll-on-legalizing-weed-youll-never-guess-what-happened-next

Walt

Yup, then the whole damned state can look like Nevada City. Stoned deadbeats on welfare littering the streets. ( like Denver is today) OH what an improvement.

The perfect utopia. People too stoned to earn their own keep. Those get those get top shelf weed for free. ( by law)
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07/02/berkeley-plans-to-provide-free-weed-for-low-income-patients-marijuana-pot-collectives-dispensaries/

The dumbing down of America... Wholesale...
That's the kind of "change" you will get Paul.
Most "smokers" are/were not like me. NEVER at work, and ONLY at home after 4:20.
Even those days are over.
So when you get weed legalized,, is heroin next on the list? ( that's medically prescribed as well) Then crack? Where does it stop?

Walt

Get your petition gatherers together Paul, and end employer drug testing. How bout it? Get the LIB unions behind that. Sue the insurance companies for demanding higher premiums to employers that don't. It isn't fair.

Want the people on assembly lines stoned on the job? How bout the guy digging next to a fiber optic line, or gas line?

You need to look at the bigger picture.

Walt

On drug testing,,, for Paul.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/29/pot-is-becoming-legal-in-more-places-but-we-should-drug-test-employees-anyway/

Read the stats about productivity.
Then there is that pesky issue of workplace safety. ( working with spinning saw blades while stoned isn't a good idea. If the guy cuts his digits off who is liable? The stoner,, or the employer? Work comp Paul?)

Full legalization sounds good at face value. But there is where it ends.

Paul Emery

So you want to keep it illegal Walt. There are only two options. Criminalize it and pay for the enforcement-incarnation costs or go with the will of the people and legalize it. You're move. Yes or no.

The comments to this entry are closed.