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

01 September 2014


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.

Paul Emery

Also Walt, legalizing would save 8.7 Billion a year in tax dollars according to the Cato institute.


Gosh, I thought you were concerned abut government spending


George 03 September 2014 at 08:55 AM
Since I admittedly have plenty of "experience" on the working stiff's point of view on this subject, I would be more than happy to add my "two cents" to any
meaningful crafting ( as you put it) of an ordinance. Even at a lowly county level. But my input would most certainly be worthless, since I look at it in the dollars and cents,, and employment of the "prescribed patient" end of things.
That goes right to the state and FED level.
I'm for verification of compliance of growers. Amount of crop grown, to what the prescribed user receives. I'm for enforcing the "non profit" line. That includes the grower, despite what Paul states.
Nope, the growers will not be happy with my opinion or ideas on the matter.
We need to keep the skimming of the "product" out of the hands of street sellers.

MJ is still illegal for recreational "use".. That's just the way it is.


Paul. What part of DRUG don't you comprehend? It "F"'s up your head just like booze. It's an impairment. A good joint in the morning, and your not worth a shit the rest of they day.
Coke and crack next on your list? How many more worthless deadbeats do the taxpayers need to take care of, since they would be too damned stoned to hold a job?
Oh.. MY apologies. The job situation is already a disaster (thanks to LIBS)there are non to be had.( even less when the sober illegals come knocking thanks to "O") Yup,, let the young smoke their brains out. " Wake and bake" Paul,, then off to the free stuff line.

Paul Emery


You're putting words into my mouth. I am talking only about Marijuana. Yes or no.

Also, do you have a cost estimate of what creation of you're 3:43 would be? Additional taxes would be necessary to fund a very detailed and intricate bureaucracy to achieve those ends. Would that be County or State level?


Paul needs to make take a little experiment. Grab one of your young stoner
clan off the streets of Nevada City, give him/her a big fat joint and have at it. Then in half an hour sit the subject down for a few common core math problems and see just how well that turns out. Be sure to publish the "findings". ( even which end of the pencil was used.)


Tax the growers at 50%. Their not claiming it now anyway.
Remember that Lefty cry? " pay your fair share!"


Also,, if a landlord doesn't want growing in or on his rental property, so be it. It's HIS. If the tenant signs that agreement under false pretenses, and the landlord finds out, immediate termination of the "contract" and out in 24 hours. No moneys to be returned to the liar.
That's not discrimination.

Paul Emery

Walt-So you're for legalization with taxation.

The tenant issue is irrelevant to the question.


Scratch that.. 45%... I'm feeling generous... ( besides.. that the standard corp. rate)


Nope,,, MMJ grower rate. They are already fleecing the med. patients blind.


I'm beginning to believe your stoned while posting. Your not comprehending a damned thing I'm saying. ( let alone reading what I post.)

Paul Emery

Gosh Darn Walt, you are sure willing to use the hammer of the Government For something you feel strongly about!

Paul Emery

Nope, re:4:45) It's never been my method of diversion. I prefer Jamison Irish Whisky, straight, no ice, room temperature at home while watching Clint Eastwood reruns.

What is there to comprehend? What you say is pretty simple to understand. Spend Billions of tax dollars to arrest and incarcerate stoners and their providers. You have never said it should be legalized.


Uh,, I have never been "anti gov." Just where in hell did that come from?
( Limited gov. ,, yes.) And keeping a drug in check isn't out of the question.
Unlike the EPA that you love so much. And you say I like the "hammer of gov".?
We can hardly turn over a shovel full of dirt without a permit, yet you want free, unregulated use of mind altering drugs.

( yup,, he's stoned....)


Irish whiskey?? GOOD GOD man! That stuff is filtered though sheep dung., and plywood aged. ( it sure tastes like it.)
American sour mash single barrel. Have some pride.
Or Tennessee Panther piss (guaranteed 15 minutes old before jarring)now sold in stores near you, is the proper thing to sip. Plus it puts hair back on your head.
BTW, and legal to consume without a doctors note.

Bill Tozer

So that is what this all boils down to, eh Paul? Legalize pot or don't. None of these mamby pamby baby steps in between. Finally. Then when it is legalized, are we going to have any regs, restrictions, laws concerning full blown legalization? Any restrictions on transportation or quantities or possession like other states have? If we limit possession of recreation grass to say, 30 pounds a person, isn't that still going to make some folks criminals as well? Ok, if we limit legal possession to say, 30 ounces, will the folks be satisfied? I am certain if we limit transportation of marijuana to say, a pound, would not that create criminals as well and overrun our court system?

Well, you finally came out and said what you desire. That was a good step so now we don't have to dance around this medical marijuana antiquated notion. That was so 1999 anyway. I must say you need to come up with a better rationale than it costs too much to throw potheads in the slammer. That is a slippery slope that crankset gangsta methheads' loved ones could use in future arguments.

Are you saying, Mr. Paul, that just say no doesn't work? Shoot, and I liked that Hugs not Drugs slogan. It was cute, but I found that "Be like me, I'm drug free" bumper stickers rather arrogant and self serving.

Well, guess it all boils down to there are two kinds of people in CA: those that inhale and those that don't.

Bill Tozer

Mr. Paul, are you saying legalize it but don't regulate it? Hmm. Why would I ever consider paying taxes on my medicine since I do not pay taxes on it now up at Rite-Aide or Wal-Greens. Why should I pay taxes for tomatoes and carrots grown in my yard? You must be brain dead to think mom and pop growers are going to pay one thin dime for something that is legal to grow in the vegetable herb garden or out in the woodshed. Ha, ha. That is a good one. Hey Mr Paul, why not institute the honor system. Make it voluntary compliance. You know, that the potheads and cultivators police and self- regulate themselves. That would work like a charm....on some other planet in some other universe.

Yep, all you growers and dealers who are here to pay taxes, please form a line to the far far left.


Bill.. Paul claims that he's not a user of MJ " It's never been my method of diversion." but thinks a good idea to set it loose upon the public.

Proof positive Scotch rots the brain. ( yet makes the case weed is safer than booze... A broke clock is right twice a day.... Go figure.)

Paul Emery

No Bill, No Walt

I never said no regs

First of all Legalization should be up to the State. Let's get the Feds out of it. Can we agree on that? McClintock is on the right path on that one.

Let each State pursue it's own path on details such as taxation. There will be great diversity from State to State just like in the use of alcohol or Tobacco.

As far as production let each State have it's own regs. There will be boutique growers with distinctive skills that will offer custom brands much like Scotland has with Scotch or Bourbon Whiskey or Beer or Wine. Nevada County will be well represented for sure with some growers having 30 years experience.

That's a rough and not complete view I have of legalization. Basically, let the States decide, dump the Feds to put it bluntly.


I don't drink Scotch! Irish is my preference.

To keep pot illegal is to further enhance the profits of gangsters and cartels just like during prohibition. By the way, law enforcement lobbied against the 21st Amendment till the bitter end just like they oppose MJ legalization. If they had their way it would still be a
Federal crime to have a beer during a barbecue or a glass of wine with dinner. It's a cash cow for incarceration facilitators and law enforcement agencies that don't want to kill the golden goose. That 8 Billion $ referred to earlier was only for Fed enforcement and did not include prisons or State and local costs. You can only guess how much the actual cost is.


We have seen how the "free use" of drugs affects people's minds. I give you S.F. as a prime example. Then they migrated to Nevada City.
Not once have you stated anything about "your" idea of regulations. None.. Nodda.
Pot rights over land lord rights etc.

Paul Emery

Why are you so hung up on landlord rights? The fact is you'd be amazed at the amount of "sharecropping" going on in Nevada County. An illegal Marijuana grow (one beyond the State law) is a very expensive proposition so deals are made with landlords to share the profits. It is SOP that the landlords use deny ability due to ignorance if the shit hits the fan. Property owners sometime seek out skilled growers to grow crops on their land. Look at the Hilkey bust on the Ridge as an example.

Small operations may sneak by but not grows of a large scale which are illegal anyway because they don't conform with State law.

You still seem to opposed to states rights in this matter.


Thanks for showing where your priorities lie. Seems you have a vested interest in "growing". What's your percentage?

Bill Tozer

Paul, WA State allows one ounce for possession. Down here in this neck of the woods, that would be called draconian. So, let the States set their own standards, which is fine by me. That we can agree on. Just like Nevada allows and regulates the world's oldest profession and various States have dry counties. New Mexico used to bar selling booze on Sundays, unless of course you knew somebody on the Rez that would meet you around back, but I digress. We have last call at 2:00am, other states have it at 3am. Even local juristicions opt for dry counties. So, I see your point and they regulate and tax the shit out of it, like tobacco and gasoline.

Guess marijuana is just another commodity that will be regulated and have it taxed to high heaven. Like the Lotto, our schools win too! Nowadays computer chips are considered a commodity as they are sold by the ton....like pot will be.

So, in short, you are willing to let the voters of CA decide. Think that is best. We up here in pot country may have a skewed view of marijuana since it is our biggest cash cow and largest employer. Just seems to me that the messed up way our State runs anything, it will be a cash cow for the State only as our local dollars will be sucked out of the economy. Somebody has to shoulder the burden of having 1/3 of the nation's welfare recipients here in the Golden Goose state and it might as well be our growers and sellers of our fine marihuana.
Can't count on Silicon Valley to pay for it all much longer. Silicon Valley, like our experienced boutique growers Is maturing. Tesla announced today that it is building its new huge mega giga humongous battery factory in the Great State of Nevada and we can kiss another 6,000 skilled jobs adios. We better get moving with a purpose and legalize marihuana cause the State needs desperately to tax the beegeezes out of something ASAP besides gasoline and cigs and rock gut Irish whiskey.

Irish whiskey. Irish whiskey? Paul, God created Irish whiskey to keep the Irish from ruling anything. Screw that stuff. Firewater or moonshine or Pabst Blue Ribbon, anything but what the Irish consume. Have you lost what is left of your mind, man?


No bloody wonder now why Paul wants the regs.s relaxed. He's out for the buck to be made. Remember that rope I mentioned? Now you sprung the trap door.
The jig is up Paul, Your no better than the Wall St. money grubbers you have complained about.


My work is done here. Good luck digging yourself out of that hole.

Bill Tozer

Yep, Mr. Paul does not seem too concerned about the plight of the landlords stuck cleaning up the smell of a grow house. Shows no sympathy in the least...it's almost as if he has contempt for landlords. What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. Next thing you know he will be rallying the troops for legalization of recreational pot coupled with rent control and some new ordinance barring landlords from setting foot on their...er...the renters' property. Paul, me thinks you have tunnel vision on this one. Sticking it to the man is so 40 years ago. But, when the revolution comes......well, when the revolution finally comes, the streets will be filled with angry youth chanting don't trust anybody over thirty and they will be sticking it to you, cause you b da man. And what can you do about it? Nothing, cause we will be all too old to even get a rise. You will be sitting on the porch just a swinging and doing long deep inhales all day long, for medicinal purposes of course.

Paul Emery

What the hell are you talking about? That's it for me.


Hammer? Check... Nails? check. Coffin lid set nice and square? Check.. BAM! BAM! BAM! Paul's argument for "S" ,,, RIP!
Paul uses people with a medical condition as an excuse for his own ends.
It has jack squat to do with their "access" to "medication". It's all about the growers, and their ability to grow more, with less restrictions.
For his own personal gain? That's for the readers here to decide. All I did was get him to spill the evidence. The court of public opinion is now in session.

Paul Emery

"What's your percentage"

Walt-Are you accusing me of a felony? Say it again or shut the fuck up.


No deep inhales for me. That's so 60's. Just straight Jamison, no ice at room temperature.


Just asking a question. Remember? growing is legal. ( as you say the law sates.)
Your entire "argument" is about that. You said "profit" is OK. I "accuse you" of nothing. Your words speak for themselves.
So who should STFU?
No wonder you have been dancing all over the place and being as vague as possible.
Please point to the flat out " you did it".
Did I say you are personally growing to sell on the street? No.
You got bested, and your pissed. Deal with it.


Paul says,,
under current law Marijuana cultivation is a legitimate cottage industry.

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

Remember? it OK to grow for many people, You know, "collectives". Those growers can rake in big profits, and legally in your opinion. So "IF" you happen to be associated in some way, shape or form, just where is that felony you speak of?
Which takes us back to your "just compensation"..
You may want to revisit all your posts. Nowhere did you complain about growers of MMJ making huge profits. Yet you defend the practice. ( in a roundabout, but obvious way.)
You Sir, now owe ME an apology.


Walt, we are talking about Measure S. If you want to talk about landlord rights, tax evasion, workplace safety -please take it to the sandbox.

Patricia Smith

The current County Ordinance is a slap in the face to thousands of patients in this County. It was written to treat legitimate patients like they are members of the drug cartel. It is virtually impossible to be in total compliance with this ordinance and I find it hard to believe that "less government" types support a law that is this deceptive. The County ordinance nonsensically makes it illegal to grow on a hillside. That provision alone makes the other 27 pages of regulations meaningless. And yes, patients have been cited for just this regulation. The landlord provision is unnecessary because it can be dealt with in a lease. Simply state whether cultivation is allowed or not - and do your due diligence by checking on your property once in awhile. Getting a notarized letter offers no more protections to a landlord than a lease does. In fact, it offers less, because a bad tenant simply won't tell the landlord and then there is nothing in place to say that his activity violates his lease. A little common sense would go a long way. And we left out enforcement measure intentionally so that the Sheriff can draft whatever measures he feels he needs to combat those who exceed the provisions of Measure S, but passing Measure S will give legitimate patients the ability to produce their medicine in peace and places reasonable restrictions on where and how much they can grow.

Gary Smith

I find it hard to believe that "less government" types support a law that is this deceptive.

Us older guys grew up in the generation where growing pot was a felony and if you were caught growing you went to real prison for many years. I remember seeing refer madness anti drug films in high school where the guy smoked pot while looking into a mirror and his head turned into a werewolf. This has been drummed into our heads from youth and us that don't use pot have 50 years of Nancy Reagan "just say no", and the government tell us how bad it is. It is still illegal on the federal level. This how one reason less government types have a hard time with medical pot. This is not going to easy for Measure S to overcome as the older generation is more likely to vote. You guys need a major get out the vote campaign if this is going to pass.

Gerry Fedor

Let's try to get some FACT's out there....

1. There are 2200+ school bus stops out there, and only 111 are active school stops. These are NOT provided by Nevada County or Durham Bus Services, because they are afraid of "child molesters" and neither party have ever disclosed these locations, some which have not been used since 1952.

This information was requested for 3+ year with the County telling the ASA that they would not provide this information.

The statement that these bus stops are published in the newspaper is not accurate at all.

2. Water usage - Russ you posted that the typical plant uses 6 gallons's per day, and that they average garden is 100 plants..... This again is a pure fabrication as the average garden size in Nevada County is 12 plants, using 1-2 gallons in the early part of the grow season (June - August) and 3-4 gallons (September - October), so your 600 gallons per day is a bit far fetched.

3. The basis for this ordinance was a purported grow on Annie Drive (15900 Annie Drive), and you can see the news report that the Sheriff gave about it, yet if you go into the Google Earth Site and look at this site (which is on a hillside below the PG&E lines) there is no such grow.....

The Sheriff's shows a huge greenhouse (uncovered) as well as another huge adjoining grow, on a flat site, yet this site is on a 45% gradient

The questions for me is were these "incidents", which were the basis for this ordinance, "fabrications" by our Sheriff?


4. There is a abatement process set up, where you get a hearing infront of a County Appointed panel to determine if an abatement should occur, and there have been 630+ such abatement notices done in 2014, 450+ in 2013, 220+ in 2013, yet not one of these has survived and been able to keep their garden.

Why have the abatement process at all? Why are we paying Nevada County Staff Abatement Team members extra money to conduct this process?

5. The Sheriff purported that his office was getting 30-50 complaints a day (May thru the end of November) which would be @6,500-10,400 complaints a year, yet when the ASA did a FOI request he responded that "we didn't write them down....."

This is the reason why this ordinance was written up as a "nuisance ordinance".

6. The current ordinance requires you the have a 8' tall solid wood fence around your garden, and if you are on 5 acres, then you have a 10' x 10' space with a 8' tall fence around it....

How much sunlight is going to get into the plants?

7. With Measure S he number of plants is strictly controlled, and there are no 100, 90, 80, 70, or 61 plant grows. If you are on 30+ acres (which is .023% of all Nevada County Properties) then you can grow 60 plants.

8. Legalization is coming, wither it's from the Legislature, or from the voters it's coming, so then what? Do we allow growers to then become producers of this crop, and keep the financial resources in our county, or do we walk away from this income stream in our county?

Businesses such as Sierra Plumbing have told me that they make @$200,000 a year from sales to growers. This means that they have 2 additional staff members who are paid with the proceeds from these sales. If we close down this in Nevada County, will we see more unemployment? My answer is absolutely! You'll see property values drop. My proof of this is that if you look at Yuba County property values for parcels over 10 acres, they are selling typically in 2-3 days, and most are getting 15-20% over asking. Nevada County does not have anywhere as a aggressive real estate market.

9. The indoors growing restrictions on 100 sq feet (contiguous garden - no walls) does not work as the way that cannabis grows is that the changing of the light cycle is what causes the plant to flower and bud, so by having no walls you are limited to have no genetic resources for your next crop. This means that you can only produce 1-3 pounds a year, and most patients use much more than that, especially if they are cooking.

Several small children are deriving tinctures, and using 3 pounds a month.

10. The State of California reconizes "collectives" (where patients can grow together) and after a judges decision, Nevada County was forced to do so, yet they will not alot anymore agre to those collective grows.

11. The current ordinance disallows any type of terracing as they say that it promotes erosion, yet you you look at the State of California Erosion control rules and regulations, they state that terracing is required to prevent erosion.

12. Nevada County regulations say that you have to grow on a perfectly flat surface..... (and being in hill country I have not seen any one of these yet...).

13. Several weeks ago a 70+ year old woman on Garden Bar (56 acres 24 plants at the very end of the road with not visibility to anyone), was accosted out of bed naked by 9 riot gear dressed officers, and forced to stand on her porch naked for 5 hours which the NCSO destroyed the inside of her home. She asked them several times for the search warrant, and after 4 weeks she still has not seen it. They destroyed every door and door frame, and then, after she found her dog's blanket to cover up, was told that she needed to leave the property as they didn't have enough officers to watch her and conduct a search....

This is typical of what the ASA group see's on a weekly basis.

The question for me is if you believe in property rights, as well as civil rights how can you support this


(d) eliminating
various nuisance control regulations and restrictions pertaining to the cultivation of marijuana
including odor control, noise, dust, traffic, lighting, anti-glare, noxious gasses, and smoke
restrictions, fencing and security requirements, and the requirement that tenants obtain written,
notarized consent to cultivate medical marijuana from the legal parcel owner;

Brad.. You see that last "change"?
"and the requirement that tenants obtain written,
notarized consent to cultivate medical marijuana from the legal parcel owner"
That means LANDLORD.. Be it on open ground, or in a house.

I got bit in the ass by a "MMJ" grower. MY property was so damaged I couldn't afford the repairs and had to sell the damned place.
And that was after I made it clear (and in writing) NO GROWING!
"S" will leave other landlords fully in the dark with no say of how THEIR property is being "used".

Gerry Fedor

See Walt, you and I have a difference of opinion here, as I believe that when you are a landlord you should actually ENFORCE your own rules.....

I'm sorry but to me this means that you actually go by the property (on a regular basis, like I do with all of my properties) and actually do more than just get a rent check every month. I know that I'm asking for a lot for people like you to do something as hard as to actually drive by your property / rental home, but I'm sorry that you were bitten by your inability to do a fairly simple task.....

The biggest problem with the landlord letter issue, is that it violates the self incrimination clause of our Constitution, you remember what that piece of paper is right?

You State:

"S" will leave other landlords fully in the dark with no say of how THEIR property is being "used".

When in reality Measure S does no such thing. If you think that you should just sit around and never go to look at your property, then you're truly a "special kind of guy" who will continue to have problems, but those of us who have rental properties and look at them like a business will never have problems......

Gerry Fedor

Walt, do you have Google Earth on your computer?

I'd like to get your thoughts to what I posted above, I'll repost it below...

3. The basis for this ordinance was a purported grow on Annie Drive (15900 Annie Drive), and you can see the news report that the Sheriff gave about it, yet if you go into the Google Earth Site and look at this site (which is on a hillside below the PG&E lines) there is no such grow.....

The Sheriff's shows a huge greenhouse (uncovered) as well as another huge adjoining grow, on a flat site, yet this site is on a 45% gradient

The questions for me is were these "incidents", which were the basis for this ordinance, "fabrications" by our Sheriff?




I hear there my be gold under your house. Let me "rent it" and start digging.
What? I didn't find any? Darn.. ( Now you fill in the hole.) Look at the bright side. You got a basement for free. I could just say I wasn't mining. ( Those permits are murder..) I just like to dig holes. No permit required for that, and be well within "my rights". There was nothing written in the agreement that I can't dig holes.
Yes, that's an over simplification, but you get the idea.

Under "S",, If I showed up to "inspect" I still would have no way to evict since the "tenant" will be within their "rights" to grow. Never mind the damage ( changes to plumbing and electrical even "IF" it's up to code.)

One another note,, what constitutes " reasonable compensation"? ( as written)
(B) Pursuant to this Ordinance, Collectives and Cooperatives that receive compensation for actual
expenses incurred in carrying out activities that are in compliance with these guidelines, including
reasonable compensation incurred for services provided to the members or the organization, shall
not be subject to prosecution or punishment either civilly or criminally, solely on that basis.

I know a "MMJ" grower who grows for others, and is proud to say he rakes in 100,000 grand a year.( legally apparently) In my opinion that far exceeds "reasonable compensation".


As for the hill side grows, ( or any other use,) the County has a 30% grade provision even to build a house or structure. It's an erosion control "law" if I remember right. As it applies here, It's a little drastic. It may also have to do with "pretty". The guys on the other side may feel it's an eyesore.

Kind of like the "scenic ridge line" excuse over in the LWW aria.
That's the county for ya'..

Joe Koyote

"6. The current ordinance requires you the have a 8' tall solid wood fence around your garden, and if you are on 5 acres, then you have a 10' x 10' space with a 8' tall fence around it…."

This seems at odds with another county ordinance that limits solid fences at 6 feet. Perhaps the 6 foot limit applies to perimeter fences only. Solid perimeter fences facing county (I don't know about private) roads are limited to 4 feet in height. If one reason for solid fences is privacy, a four foot fence isn't going to do much in that regard. For that matter, a six foot fence on a hillside doesn't do much screening from prying eyes uphill either and neither would an 8 foot fence in that situation. So what is the point other than creating another hoop to jump through?

George Rebane

GerryF 940am - landlords should "should actually ENFORCE (their) own rules". In this litigious age where property rights have already been pared back, what are the mechanisms by which landlords can 'enforce' their renters to do anything? Most certainly the landlord cannot physically intervene. Then filing a complaint with some county or city agency will (may?) start a process that will be lengthy, costly, and have little if any chance of ultimately making the landlord whole from his renter's infractions.

The only relief remaining for the landlord is to carefully vet his candidate renters, and then discriminate on the basis of how he judges his risk to be minimized. But then new laws and ordinances have been fashioned exactly prevent the landlord from such risk lowering discriminations.

How does this reality tie with any ordinance on any issue that relies on the ability of the landlord to constructively enforce anything once the renter moves in an makes the rental his home and castle?


Why are we stuck on the "landlord" issue? The current ordinance (per the spreadsheet) reads,

"cultivator must have written & notarized
permission from landlord to grow MJ"

What difference will a notarized document make? The rental agreements I use state at the outset that no drug manufacturing can take place. The tenant signs this.
It does not matter if it is illegal, or legal. If a renter wants to do something like sneak a cat, or dog in, or fire up a meth lab, they will do it.

George Rebane

GerryF 916am - Thanks for the extensive layout of 'facts'. Perhaps other readers have more time to vet them, but I did notice that your list starts out with a pretty bad error about the Union's publishing of school bus stops. Please check the 7aug14 issue in which you will find the school bus stops published.


Question: Does Measure S replace the current ordinance, or just modify sections of the current ordinance and let stand the parts that Measure S is silent on?

Gerry Fedor

George & Joe, thanks for the constructive question / comments....

George, the easiest manner is for the landlord to actually write this condition into their rental agreement / lease, and then go thru the appropriate legal process to stop this from happening (if it is????).

Joe, you're right as there have been abatement's because of this exact problem, but the county refuses to address this issue. This should be addressed thru the abatement hearing and process, but there is no clause for repealing the abatement process.

The most concerning thing to me is that the BOS said they knew there were lots of problems with the Urgency Ordinance that they passed, and they have had 3 years and numerous chances to revise this ordinance, but refused to do so......

Why is that? Our Sheriff say's "because it works".

I'm wondering for whom he's speaking about, other than his department?

This ordinance has cost the county several million dollars to take us down this road, and has it worked?

I'd tend to say absolutely no!


04 September 2014 at 09:17 AM ... I gave you the proposed change, right from "S". Go read it....Never mind...
D)(REMOVES) the requirement that tenants obtain written,
notarized consent to cultivate medical marijuana from the legal parcel owner;

"legal parcel owner" is NOT the renter.

Anymore questions?

Gerry Fedor

Walt, the California State court has already determined the reasonable compensation factor, as you can be paid for your time and materials.

Anyone who makes a $100,000 is plain and simple a criminal according to California law.

The other thing is that you're wrong as the max slope factor you can build upon, as it is a 23% gradient.

Thanks and have you had a chance to look at the video and Google Earth site on Annie Drive (15900 annie drive GV)?

Gerry Fedor

My points are that many of us consider ourselves to be Patriots and that we should uphold the Constitution, yet we are willing to let someone else's rights get trampled just because we don't want to do our work, or we believe in Nancy Reagan's "just say no" crapola.....

Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety...."

Gerry Fedor

Walt, according to several lawyers who looked at that section of the ordinance said that this section is in direct contradiction to the self incrimination clause of the Constitution, and that was why it was removed, as it's unlawful as written in the current ordinance.....

George Rebane

GerryF 1108am - From your response it appears that my 1041am stands - for a landlord today there is neither a practical nor a constructive (legal term of art) way to 'enforce' any provision of a rental agreement, either explicit or implicit, that will make him whole (legal term of art). And we should note that being made whole goes way beyond having physical damage repaired, it also involves defending yourself against gratuitous government citations, assessments, fees, ..., in addition to the expense of lawsuits wherein he may be either defendant or plaintiff.

IMHO, including landlords' rights in this discussion is paramount since so much of the stuff is grown illegally on rented properties.


" landlords' rights in this discussion is paramount since so much of the stuff is grown illegally on rented properties" - Is it the job of Measure S to rewrite landlord/tenant law? That sounds like a discussion for another day.
It has always been a problem. People can rent a commercial property and pollute it with toxic waste from industrial processes, fuel spillage, etc. They can be sued. Get insurance to cover it (haha, good luck).


I beg to differ Gerry, " just compensation" is as clear and "transparent" as the Obummer administration.

That's my other beef about the MMJ laws/ordinances. " Non profit".. It's anything BUT. Heck.. Just about every shop has a bill counter sitting next to the register. There is only one "line of work" that I know of that has that much "pays in cash" ability.

Use that google earth, and you can't swing a dead cat @ 10,000 feet without seeing all the grows. I don't care what part of the County, let alone the state you care to look. Any bets every one has a "recommendation" nailed to the site?

George Rebane

Brad 1130am - No, Measure S doesn't have to "rewrite landlord/tenant law", but any MJ production ordinance must recognize it simply because it is such a big factor in how the stuff is grown in built-up areas where neighbors are impacted.

And I agree that bringing up the whole issue of landlord/tenant relations does highlight what has happened in this era of progressive fundamental transformation. Perhaps its broader discussion in the context of legalizing MJ grows will motivate a review and revision to put sanity back into such laws. (I'm not holding my breath.)


From Brad earlier "Walt, we are talking about Measure S. If you want to talk about landlord rights, tax evasion," ( take it to the sandbox)

Did you even read the measure before piping up?

The screwing over of people who rent property is more than enough to send "S" to the shredder.
Many people who rent their property have a good portion of their life savings invested in that property, and NO insurance policy is going to cover that potential loss, from unscrupulous pot growing tenants.
"S" just makes it a whole lot easier.


One more statistic to think about. MJ ( legal or otherwise) is officially the #1 cash crop and "income" producer.
That "non profit" end of things is really being enforced..
And we need to make it easier to grow???


Look what turns up today.

Make less than 30 grand? Get a P.O. box in Berkeley. Your meds. will now be free.
Black market addresses?


Walt, you are missing out. Think of all the "potholes", seasonal ponds, irrigation and plumbing lines you could be digging.
Pissed off about people making money? How much is too much money for a year's work? $100,000 is about right as a minimum starting salary if you want to eat at local restaurants with tablecloths on them, take a 2-4 vacation, and buy some toys for the garage.


Re Brad C. 4sept14 11:04am Measure S, if approved will completely repeal NC Ordinance 2349 and would replace it with the language of Measure S.

Re Patricia S. 4sept14 8:38am Thank you for serving as the passionate proponent for the medical marijuana contingent of our county. You have been reasonable, reachable, and put a friendly face on the medical marijuana movement. To claim however that patients are being slapped in the face strains the imagination as anyone with $160 or so can get a “recommendation” and cultivate for themselves. How can the current ordinance with 27 separate legal definitions be more deceptive than Measure S which has only 2 definitions which in my mind invites capricious interpretation/enforcement? If the current ordinance allowed cultivation on a slope or terrace, would that make the entire current ordinance acceptable rather than meaningless? For discussion of landlord tenant issues and eviction realities please see the GerryF and GeorgeR discussion starting at 4sept14 9:16am and continuing.

Aside from relaxing every aspect of the current ordinance, the things Measure S has “left out” are remarkable. Leaving out enforcement “so that the sheriff can draft whatever measures he feels he needs to combat those who exceed the provisions of Measure S” is a problem for many of us. I don’t believe that the sheriff’s job is to draft measures or write regulations himself. That office enforces duly enacted laws and ordinances where the sheriff is named as “enforcement officer”. That Measure S has “left out” individual, civil protections of notice, appeal, review and abatement is another weakness. Measure S also leaves out explicit fencing requirements and explicit lighting guidelines. “Intending” to have those requirements doesn’t mean they are actually in the initative before the voters. Without specificity Measure S invites capricious and uneven enforcement. “Left out” of Measure S is any prohibition against cultivation in areas zoned for use as airport, commercial, business park, office professional, SDA, industrial etc. and by omission allows cultivation there without limitation. Finally, “left out” also is any language to implement or stop diversion of medical marijuana to the illicit drug market or create guidelines for distribution, transportation or storage of the medical marijuana material as claimed in Measure S.

The current Nevada County ordinance 2349 has been amended several times and may not yet be ‘perfect’. But throwing it out and completely starting over with Measure S, with all of its delineated weaknesses, will surely create 1) more uncertainly for those patients who cultivate medical marijuana, 2) more aggravation, and 3) be a greater nuisance for their neighbors.

Gerry Fedor

Jerebane - can you outline /document where it's been amended?

I find it hard to understand where you come up with the premise that Measure S be a greater nuisance for neighbors, when you consider that 97.3% of the properties in Alta Sierra, 99.1% of the properties in LOP and 96.4% of the properties will no longer be able to grow outside.....

Can you explain this remark and the basis for it?

Michael R. Kesti

Walt 3Sep14 03:22 PM

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

Is that also how you feel about the repeal of Prohibition? In other words, do you feel that alcohol should be illegal, too?

Gerry Fedor

Michael, I don't think it ends at legalization as I want to see this become a job producing industry for Nevada County.

One of the problems I have is that if this ever happened, we'd be throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars in income for our county.

Plus look at the current workforce we have in this area, which have been cultivating their own product(s) for a long time. The cultivation of cannabis is not just "throw them there seeds in the ground, and shazam you have product....."

Many of these people have extensive knowledge in the cultivation of this product, which means good paying local jobs that will mean a trickle down into the community and jobs for hundreds of others. Nevada County is a black-hole for employment, but I for one, want to change that, and if cannabis become legal then I want to see local jobs being created.


Just name the mind altering substance, at it will be abused. There are laws against drinking and driving, yet next to every damned bar, there is a parking lot.
Pot today isn't what it was back in the good o' daze... Today's grass can be as potent as heroin.
We have enough lazy sob's as it is, yet some want to compound the problem.
Pot causes weight gain. It drives up your triglycerides ( my doc. said so)
It's hell on your lungs. No, it doesn't prevent cancer.

Unless you grow your own, you don't have a clue what soil it was grown in.
MJ is REAL GOOD at extracting heavy metals and other toxins from the dirt it's grown in.
There are just WAY too many variables.
And with booze, not vary many can "make their own". Only recently did "moonshine" become a store shelf item.

BTW, Alcohol is well regulated, taxed, and plenty of quality control. Licenses to make and sell. But somehow we can't do that with weed.

There is a huge diff. between the two.
Like I said before. I was for legalization before I was against it. ( I wised up.)


GerryF 4sept14 2:39pm Amendments to the current ordinance can be found on the county's website http://www.mynevadacounty.com/search/pages/Results.aspx?sq=1&k=medical%20marijuana%20ordinance&start1=1 The website is disorganized but I'm sure you will already notice 3 amendments on page 1.

Even assuming that the data you present is correct, there are many other activities that are not permitted on ALL the properties in the communities you list. And there are other places like Grass Valley and Nevada City that are also off limits to growers, and most certainly even all of those don't make up the whole county. But that's neither here nor there. You may be surprised to learn that others balance this consideration with the many that I have outlined in my post and my 1:44pm comment.


Think about this. "O" knows LIBS is in deep trouble come Nov., and for years to come. I won't put it past him to pull one of his signature "executive order" law by pen and signature. Weed to be legalized from shore to shore. The "choomster"
will do his best to give the Left the weed vote. ( Hell. trading votes for weed has already been done.)

Michael R. Kesti

Walt 4Sep14 03:46 PM

"BTW, Alcohol is well regulated, taxed, and plenty of quality control. Licenses to make and sell. But somehow we can't do that with weed."

I accept that we haven't but not that we cannot regulate, tax, and control the quality of legalized marijuana. Please explain why you believe that we cannot.


Now that Berkeley has it's new "free pot" for those who make less than 30 grand,
the price in the dispensaries will necessarily go WAY up, to subsidize the free(loaders) There is no way they make that up in volume. That's a great way to drive those dispensaries right out of that non profit business.( more unemployed.) Those few that make more than 30 grand will go right back to the good ol' daze and by it off the streets at a reduced rate.

If you want to smoke,,, have at it. At your own expense. Don't go crying to the government for a welfare handout because you can't hold a job, or get refused the job, because you can't pass the drug test.
That's the way it is these days. " drug free job sites". Want your accountant doing your books stoned while crunching the numbers? How about your defense attorney?
Look at the bigger picture of "unintended consequences". Ya... It sound great at face value.

Still think Colorado style legalization is a great idea? ( even there, they are having second thoughts.)


"Please explain why you believe that we cannot."
How can you reasonably tax what anyone can grow in their own home?
It's like trying to tax your tomato plants.

Michael R. Kesti

"It's like trying to tax your tomato plants."

Is it?

Sure, some people like to grow tomatoes but it doesn't seem to have put supermarkets out of the produce business. You're free to grow your own tobacco for personal use, as well. It's legal to brew beer and distill spirits, again, for personal use, too, and yet a great majority of people choose to purchase, and pay the tax, on alcohol products. Yet you expect "lazy sob's [sic]" to expend the time and effort to grow marijuana when they would be able to purchase it in stores?

Account Deleted

from Brad - "$100,000 is about right as a minimum starting salary if you want to eat at local restaurants with tablecloths on them, take a 2-4 vacation, and buy some toys for the garage."
OK, you do mean eating out every night and the 2-4 meant 2 to 4 months in Europe?
No wonder we have differences of opinion. It must cost you 5 bucks to take a leak.


Michael. Anyone who wants it today has it, and it's not even IN stores.
"Granny" just has to ask the high school kid down the street, and it's there within the hour. It doesn't matter what time of year.
Taxing and regulating the above board sale will be like trying to heard cats.

Michael R. Kesti

Yes, Walt, and anybody who wanted alcohol during prohibition had it, as long as they were willing to risk the criminal consequences. Repeal killed off gangsterism, stopped making criminals of causal users/drinkers, and allowed the creation of a legal supply industry that was, and still is, well regulated and taxed. There is every reason to expect the same to happen with legalized marijuana except, perhaps, the mindset of those who just cannot or will not see it.

The criminalization of marijuana is in every way the same as the prohibition of alcohol.


It sounds good in theory, but there is a HUGE diff. Back then plenty of booze came in from Canada. ( like weed and other drugs from Mex. today)
Few people had access or the knowhow in distilling. Unless you lived in the boonies. Then the chase was on. ( The birth of NASCAR) The "G" man didn't have the goods they do today.
Supply was there, but limited. Unlike today where a plant can be found behind any given Manzeneta bush.

This is a whose different breed of cat.

Gerry Fedor

Isn't it interesting that some of us get to have a intelligent discussion, while Walt is telling us that Pot is as potent at Heroin and bringing in more mud (to throw on the wall) to see what sticks.....

Jeeze guy, give it a break as in the history of mankind not one person has did from the ingestion of marijuana, and in fact I checked with the CDC toxicity website and (if my calculations are correct) you'd have to smoke 15 pounds in 15 minutes (and then you'd most likely die from asphyxiation....). Then we're blessed hear about Berkeley's free pot program, and how Colorado is sorry that they legalized it (their sorry they left in the stipulation that medical is taxed at a much lower rate than recreational material), and then pot is used for pulling heavy metals out of the ground, and so on, and so on........

I find it so confusing that in the past years you yell us all about smoking it and how you earned lots of money from it, but now all of a sudden your the "virgin mary".....

Seems to be that little hypocrite standing on your shoulder


I guess they missed these two.

As far as "overdose",, no. Yes, somewhat "safer" that booze.
How about falling asleep at the wheel, and slamming into an oak tree?

How much have you smoked Gerry? I probably have ya' beat. I'm defiantly no stranger to the stuff.
"I find it so confusing that in the past years you yell us all about smoking it and how you earned lots of money from it, but now all of a sudden your the "virgin mary"....."
Now you've crossed the line. I have NEVER sold it. Ever. Whatever I grew in the past was for my own use, and I had a VALID recommendation.( I still have the expired one in my wallet) Better reread where you got that.
Great job jumping to conclusions.
Posting while stoned again?


Scott 448pm - sure, a person can live on less, but the Wiki on middle class wage range is 95-140k. Sorry, I left out the "week" in 2-4 week vacation.


If someone can point out a way for reasonable and effective taxation,
an ways to keep it out of the paws of school kids, I'd like to hear it.

We have legal penalties for booze, how can those be applied to MJ?


Walt, you cannot keep anything out of the hands of anyone if they really want it.
Kids steal the folks booze, cigs, etc. all the time.
This is no different.
People also work for cash all the time around here. Restaurant owners may, or may not report all their sales, servers may not report all their tips.
You could dig a bunch of holes for some grower, get paid in cash, and not report it to the IRS.
Anything can happen.


"You could dig a bunch of holes for some grower, get paid in cash, and not report it to the IRS." Yaa,, I was offered a short job like that, but they wanted to pay me in weed. Funny how that works. Growers don't have any cash at plant'n time.
Staying away from illegal activity is why I have never been on the wrong side of a jail house door. I plan on keeping it that way. A fast buck selling weed isn't as important as keeping my right to own firearms, and voting.
Being a felon is not a badge of honor.

Gerry Fedor

Sorry Walt, I've never smoked it, but my wife used it during her last days dying from Cancer....

My father also used it before his death from Colon Cancer.

My brothers use it, as one has Panic attacks on a weekly basis and this has solved that issue, while my other brother has served 4 tours and has lost his hearing in one ear and still has PTSD, but he uses it to cope.

I find it very funny where you get your data, as let's look at a single dispensary in the SF Bayarea - Harborside. 120,000 members and last year they brought in over $27,000,000 in income and the average sale was $73.00. You seem to want to tell everyone that Pot users are small time criminals, but the supporting data does not show that, in fact the LE data shows that operation of a liquor store will bring in much more crime that a dispensary.

You complain about taxes, so let's look at that. I know that through a quick survey of the ASA members at one meeting (this is not a scientific or substantiated survey) 95% of them stated that they reported all income, as this allowed them to deduct expenses (like a regular business), and then they spent their money, paid sales taxes, then that money was used by business owners to pay wages of their staff members, as well as pay rent on their building, pay their taxes, etc.

Sierra Plumbing's manager told me that they figured that they had $200,000 in sales from cannabis related projects, so what did you think they did with that money?

They did things like pay salaries of staff, paid rent, etc......

You seem to think that everyone is driving around with a new Porsche Cayman, while I see someone who's paying their property taxes (and I find it humorous that she's paying for the service of the group that wants to destroy her ability to sell to other members of her collective), or pay for Obamacare because her MS is so bad that her current medicine is not covering all of her needs.....

Gerry Fedor

Walt, I also noticed that you place such a huge priority on keep you firearms as this is a right that you get according to our founding fathers documents?

What's your position on the FACT that if you have any cannabis and firearms on your property the local LE group can, and has charged people with the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, which caries a mandatory 5 year prison sentence.

These are people who had an old gun stuck in a downstairs closet that hadn't been fires in 10 years, but they are now sitting in jail as the DA told them that he would pursue this charge if they did not plea to a 18 month charge.....

You wonder why 97% of people arrested on Felony's in the county never go to court, now you know why, as this is the modus operandi for the local LE and DA group.

You crack me up as "no one's going to take away my rights, but we don't give a crapola about anyone else's gun right who has a plant growing in their backyard......"

Michael R. Kesti

Walt 4Sep14 07:58 PM

"If someone can point out a way for reasonable and effective taxation,"

Reasonable and effective taxation can be applied, as I have already said in this discussion, in exactly the same way a we currently do with alcohol. I'll now add, "and/or tobacco."

"an [sic] ways to keep it out of the paws of school kids, I'd like to hear it."

I submit that this will be easier when marijuana is a genuinely controlled substance rather than kicked it under the rug of criminalization. For proof ask any high school student whether it is easier to obtain a six pack of beer of a bag of pot. Their answer will be the pot and this is because pot's distribution is by criminals willing to sell to children rather than by business people whose best interest is served by staying on the correct side of the law.

We have legal penalties for booze, how can those be applied to MJ?

I honestly don't understand this question. To which, "legal penalties for booze," is it that you refer?


Walt , you are all over the map here. Are growers so poor they can't pay you, or are they unfairly raking in the big bucks?
You want the government out of your gun safe and the tailpipe of your tractor, yet you support full Nannyism with regard to MMJ.

George Rebane

Brad 717am - Is it beyond the bounds of reason to discriminate in what functions and aspects of one's life they welcome and/or tolerate government's involvement. While being a proponent of legalizing MJ, that doesn't mean I want it legalized in any manner that you may suggest. And that even though I do want the government to minimize how it curtails my 2nd Amend rights. I can understand perfectly well why/how you may want much stricter gun controls and a lot few restrictions on the growing and consumption of MJ. Government does not have to applied to all things in a uniform manner.

My own belief about MJ legalization have been on display for years since I got off the fence. But I sincerely believe that tighter controls are required on MJ than guns simply because of the their relative benefits to maintaining a liberal and civil society. In such expressions, neither of us should call the other a hypocrite.


George, if guns grew on trees even gun controllers would give up. Cannabis is even easier to grow than trees.

The libertarian position is it ain't the government's business what you possess. Any true criminality is related to use: unsafe vehicle operation, providing to minors, etc.


"all over the map"?? Not so.. It's obvious you can't even pay attention, since you didn't even comprehend that landlord issues with "S". "Selective reading" again?
I have no problem will the MED use. Show where I said otherwise. As for full legalization, it's a real bad idea on the whole.

Once legalized, then what? Employers can still require you to be "drug free".
Smoke on Friday, yet still test "dirty" on Mon.

Yes. Us reformed smokers are a real buzz kill.


"legal penalties for booze,"
You know ,, DUI? Sale without a license/permit, sale to minors,,etc.

George Rebane

Gregory 917am - Good point, one that highlights another reason I cannot call myself a true libertarian, and must suffer an amalgam of beliefs under the label conservetarian.

I do believe in selected application of collective prophylaxis in processes where no such mediation would, with high probability, lead to damage/death/destruction to and of others (i.e. the innocents).


Fedor.. There is a new document out that spells out gun ownership.
It's called The Bill of Rights.. You may care to read it someday.
Maybe you can find where MJ is written in. ( with a sharpey?)


"Once legalized, then what? Employers can still require you to be "drug free"."

You bet. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it should be condoned. Legal does not mean "good" or "approved". It means the power of the government will not be used against you.

Others are free to use their good judgment and are free to associate with you, or not.


I am beginning to think the idea of conservative progressivism is to bring everything back to a 1950s baseline (regressivism, traditionalism?). In that ideal world, we would have our cigs rolled up in our white T-shirt sleeve, cruising the big V-8 (no smog controls allowed!) with a case of Hamm's beer in the backseat, guns in the window rack, MJ is a felony, and the US is fighting a hot or cold war for hearts and minds somewhere. Happy Days reruns! Hey, that is what I am going to do (if I can get the ol' Caddy's breaks to work)- its car show weekend at the fairgrounds!


"I do believe in selected application of collective prophylaxis in processes where no such mediation would, with high probability, lead to damage/death/destruction to and of others (i.e. the innocents)."

An example, please. The devil is in the details.


Posted by: Brad | 05 September 2014 at 09:48 AM

I'll give you this Brad...when you project...you really, really, really see it through!


A big boat of American steal? ( Nice!) Ignore the nasty looks from the Prius and Subaru, pro weed drivers. ( they want that dinosaur of a gross polluter scrapped and sent to China for cheap after market Toyota parts, made by 5 dollar a day slave labor)
At least their not sending Oriental MJ over to cut into locally grown "products". ( Smuggled opiates not withstanding)


Since Gerry says he's never partaked in the stuff, let me help ya' out a little.
You may get this feeling in your chest like you just saw your wife and your two "girlfriends" sitting at a table,,, "talk'n" .

George Rebane

Gregory 952am - Letting a five-year-old, or, for that matter, anyone drive a car on public roads without first demonstrating their capacity to do so safely and responsibly.


George, that isn't a possessory crime, which was what I was writing about, and is, in essence, the whole point of this thread, not to mention the allowing unlicenseable 5 year olds to drive motor vehicles on public roads isn't the position of any libertarian I have ever heard of.

Michael R. Kesti

Walt 5Sep14 09:24 AM

"You know ,, DUI? Sale without a license/permit, sale to minors,,etc."

Thank you for the clarification, Walt.

My answer remains the same. These can all be managed in exactly the same way alcohol and/or tobacco are managed currently. A variation on the field sobriety test might be necessary but enforcing unlicensed sale, sale to minors, and such would be no different from alcohol and tobacco.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad