« Ruminations - 23sep14 | Main | Sandbox - 27sep14 »

26 September 2014

Comments

Paul Emery

George

I am not a supporter of either the current ordinance or Measure S and have much to say about your analysis that leads you to support 2349 but it will have to wait till after the Celtic Festival. I am surprised though that you support the enforcement process of 2349 that allows the Sheriffs department to search your property without a criminal search warrant needing only a "complaint" of a code violation to enter and search your property including your residence. This is surprising from a property rights activist such as you claim to be. By the way the "complaint" does not have to be revealed either to the person being searched or the judical officer to receive an "administrative" warrant. It is typical for the code enforcement officers not to have any warrant at al when they knopck on your door. It is almost without precedent
that police are used to enforce nuisance codes. Nevada County had to pass a special ordinance to allow the Sheriffs Dept to take this action.

This support of police authority to enter private property seems out of place for a man with your convictions. Can you explain why you feel it is OK to use such action in this situation?

Walt

Well let me add MY two cents...Paul,, There are more illegal grows than legal. Yet you don't support ANY kind of of "registration to separate the two. ( go ahead and regurgitate the same Mendocino excuse) And just because illegal grows "support" the local businesses
is no excuse for breaking the law. A pot plant in plain view is good enough for probable cause. Ask any layer. "property rights" has NO bearing on breaking the law. Even a high school educated ditch digger can understand that. How about a Berkeley Hippie?

Paul Emery

I thoroughly support the idea of registration but Walt how can you do it without self incrimination? What's legal with the state is illegal with the country. Mendocino is not an excuse it's a fact. Residents of that County were abiding by State and County laws and regulations but were busted by the Feds who used their "registration" to identify and arrest them. Same thing with requiring certicied landlords consent to grow. Those "consents" are filed with the County and could be used by the Feds to bust the landlords for conspiracy to commit a felony.

How would you propose growers be registered without self incrimination?

Paul Emery

Everyone feel free to comment on my observation. It's a very perplexing problem that needs to be solved before any real progress is made.

Brad C.

I don't think it matters if the end use of the product is RMJ or MMJ. Who are we to judge?
I also don't think it matters if there is, or is not enough MJ growing in our county for our own needs. Does Napa Valley only produce enough wine for the Napa residents, of course not. MJ grown in Nevada County can be sold anywhere in the California.
If "Grass" Valley is the MJ equivalent of Napa Valley, should we not embrace that fact and promote it?
Additionally, I doubt that Measure S is significiently mrore lenient than Yuba County's regs right next door.

Paul Emery

I'm with you on that Brad. If Nevada County had any common sense, which it doesn't, it would work with growers and establish cultivation as a legitimate agricultural cottage industry. Legalization for recreation is coming no doubt and would probably pass in November if on the ballot but it surely will be on in '16 when there will be a higher voter turnout of likely supporters it being a Presidential year.

Georges argument that there is plenty being grown for local residents is possibly true but what he fails to accept is that Nevada County has a legitimate legal industry growing marijuana for profit to service the hundreds of legal dispensaries and distribution outlets throughout the State. Why not embrace and create rules that support legitimate and conscientious growing as a cottage industry that will continue to bring millions of dollars to our rural residents in our County?

The current Ordinance if effectively enforced would bring economic ruin to our County. I challenge those who disagree to go door to door in Grass Valley and Nevada City and candidly ask business owners their opinion of the economic impact of cultivation to our economy. There are untold numbers of mortgages dependent on cultivation. The Ordinance is not effectively enforced but to access the impacts of a regulation, and that what it is not a law, one has to look at the possible effects of enforcement, something that the Sheriff and Board of Supervisors refuse to look at.

By the way Yuba County has an Ordinance very similar to Measure S and is suffering no harm from it.

http://www.co.yuba.ca.us/Departments/Community%20Development/pubMC.aspx

Walt

What part of illegal (for profit) can't you guys understand? Nevada Co. is balls deep in MJ. Legal(MMJ) and otherwise. After countless times of asking for just what constitutes " just compensation" no one has come up with an answer.
As for the landlord /tenant, just where is that written it gets "registered" with the Co.?
Did I miss something? NO rental agreement is filed at the county clerk's office.

"The current Ordinance if effectively enforced would bring economic ruin to our County"
Well it hasn't yet,, nice try.
How about legal industry? Like mining? logging? OH NO!! We can't have that!! never mind that's what made this aria to begin with. Those have been regulated right out of existence. But an industry that screws up people's minds is just fine. Users of dope are unemployable. Every business drug tests, and an MJ script isn't a pass. Even legal meds in most cases is a disqualifier. I know. I just went through that.

Until the state and FED laws are changed, growing dope for profit is illegal.
Ca.'s MMJ law was written and passed under the non profit provision. That was side stepped right out of the box.
If it's grown here, it needs to stay here. As stated before weed from here is smuggled all over the country, as well as from any other county in the state.

Get caught growing more than is allowed, deal with the fallout.
Want to grow? buy the property and don't make your actions a liability for someone else.
If a landlord doesn't want dope grown on HIS asset, that should be his right. He is the one paying the taxes and liability insurance. Not the dope grower. The doper usually leaves, and the landlord is stuck with the damage and mess. Been there, done that.
And so has plenty others.

D. Smith

George,

Measure S would have never happened if the BOS would have "amended" 2349, and they were ask to do so numerous times but they gave the ASA the middle finger, even after a court decision telling them to do so.....

It make me sad that Walt is too dopey to see that his concerns should be handled much like when a renter has dogs/animals on a property, as these are handled through a rental agreement.

Self incrimination in court is not a legal thing that any of us wants to be a part of.

This consistent pounding of bedlam happening with rental properties is a issue that requires a landlord to actually do what they are supposed to do... Follow their rental agreements and not have the government wiping his ass because he's too lazy to take care of his own responsibilities!

Dave

fish

Everyone feel free to comment on my observation. It's a very perplexing problem that needs to be solved before any real progress is made.

You will probably fail this go around Paul. It won't make any difference, weed will still be plentiful. At some point 5,6,7 years down the road when Taxifornia is really desperate for money, someone in the legislature will propose the legalize/regulate/tax scheme and this issue will largely be behind us (the bureaucrats are going to be disappointed in their take....which I find schadentacular).

I imagine those who want to grow for personal consumption will be granted exemptions analogous to home brewers/vintners.

It will suck for people in the legal (Hah!) system now who will still be prosecuted until things change but eventually legalization is going to prevail.

Brad C.

Walt, I get it. You are pissed off that a dirt bag tenant trashed your rental property. But that is a landlord/tenant dispute. Have you talked to a lawyer about how to write a better rental agreement that would protect you in the event someone wanted to turn your yard or garage into a MJ garden?

fish

Oh crap....

The federal implications. Once legal at the state level the State of California will probably need to defend their new revenue stream against the feds. This means multiple trials at multiple levels. I imagine they will prevail eventually but it will probably take another 10 years after either side forces the issue.

George Rebane

Gentlemen, most interesting and somewhat anticipated comments. First, a careful reader having read my piece and some of your (PaulE and BradC) remarks could conclude that you did not read what I have posted. To advance the discussion you need not attempt to make me sound as if 1) I didn’t support the legalization of RMJ, and 2) I didn’t know that NC is a major source of high quality RMJ nationwide, and 3) the growth of RMJ is a leading source of private sector revenues in the county.

But what is clear that you don’t seem to grasp is that both 2349 and S deal solely with MMJ, the only kind that can be legally grown, distributed, and consumed in California. Even the pro-S people like ASA don’t promote the growth of ‘excess’ MJ for the RMJ markets and use it in their arguments. The PUTATIVE issue is only the growing of MMJ. Now we all know what the real issue is, and that is where you should step forward and clearly make the point to advance this discussion.

Your real aim in supporting S is the same as that which will garner it the most votes in the county, and that is to relax MMJ growing rules so that more RMJ can be grown with less risk. Why not just come out and say it so we can get on with the debate on whether or not to vote for S? Such an argument for S would go with the general plan to get more people growing, distributing, consuming, and profiting from RMJ so that it will speed up the legalization of the weed into a minimally regulated environment. There is nothing to hide, we all know what the real purpose of Measure S is to be.

BTW, it appears that BradC is really not up to date on the realworld rental situation, especially as it concerns renters and landlord rights. We all wish it were as he imagines it.

Walt

A rental agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on when a tenant disregards it.
Lawyer or no lawyer. Who has ten grand as a cleaning deposit? Think a dope grower is going to fork that over? LOL!!
Once a person is in a rental good luck getting him/her out!! See you in court!! In six MONTHS!!
Just who are you two trying to fool? My good guess is that neither one of you has ever rented to anyone. Yet you feel it's a great idea to "F"over a landlord.

Using grape growers is a piss poor example. It take a hell of a lot more time and effort to make wine in any quantity. ( and to even make a buck)

Where booze in concerned (legal) every bit of it is accounted for. How about dope? ( ya.. right)
Any "shiners" around these parts? They sure are not in it for the buck.( or medicinal excuses)

BTW motorcycles are still not allowed in LWW either.( not sure of LOP) yet you think dope growing will be accepted? Fat chance.

Brad C.

Let's be fair, at least. I can hear the gun range from my house. It is an offensive sound. Guns and shooters of guns have been known to ruin lives,just like MJ, apparanty. But as the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people do. Likewise, MJ doesn't ruin lives, people do. The county transfer station also smells. Should we move the range and transfer station out of the county?

fish

Posted by: Walt | 27 September 2014 at 08:17 AM

How did an illegal grow result in 10K worth of clean up?

fish

Posted by: Brad C. | 27 September 2014 at 08:22 AM

Despite the most fervent hopes of the left, you still don't have a right "not to be offended"....in any form. I don't care much for the stink of the evil weed (in its pre-harvest glory or when it's consumed) but I consider this trivial compared to the thuggish tactics the government employs to combat what is little more than a nuisance.

Walt

Well now.. The plot thickens.. A poll just came out in regard to legalizing weed.
Last year it was 51%. Well not today... It's down to 47 or so %.
All they need to do is look to Colorado and see what it's done there. And it sure isn't pretty.

Why don't you guys call "O" and Co. , and instead of dropping bombs in ISIS,, drop bundles of Nevada County's finest? They would be too stoned to fight, and even forget what they are fighting about. Cluster bombs filled with joints! Incendiary bombs that's 70% dope The new "non lethal" chemical weapon. Just dope smoke'm.

fish

Posted by: Walt | 27 September 2014 at 08:34 AM

Last week President O'Teleprompter was in the low thirties in a nationwide poll sponsored by someone......in a couple of weeks the MSM will dangle another "shiny object" in front of the electorate and he'll shoot into the 50's.

Poll numbers...learn not to trust them.

Joe Koyote

3. " To my knowledge no one knows the number of prescribed MMJ users in the county – is it in the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands? (Why don't we know it?) -- We don't know this just like you don't know if your neighbor takes Valium. Doctor-patient privacy issues.. We don't know it because it is none of our business. My question to you is why do you think it's our business? By what logic does one legally prescribed medicine (pharmaceuticals) differ from another legally prescribed medicine (pot) in terms of the public's right to know who uses it or doesn't?

"Once legal at the state level the State of California will probably need to defend their new revenue stream against the feds." -- Has this occurred in Colorado or Washington? I have yet to read much negativity about Colorado, most stories are about how crime is down, people are happy and the state is making millions of dollars.

fish

"Once legal at the state level the State of California will probably need to defend their new revenue stream against the feds." -- Has this occurred in Colorado or Washington? I have yet to read much negativity about Colorado, most stories are about how crime is down, people are happy and the state is making millions of dollars.

The feds haven't forced the issue yet. The bigger the aggregate revenue stream the more tempting it will be for the thieves in D.C. (District of Criminals) to ignore. How it will manifest itself I don't know. It's coming.

Revenue is lower than projections I believe. Not drastically. I also believe there have been some "teething problems" with crime. Drug related crimes are down but there have been increases in other areas (property crimes, petty theft, etc.).

fish

The bigger the aggregate revenue stream the more tempting it will be for the thieves in D.C. (District of Criminals) to ignore.

Sorry....bad sentence.

The bigger the aggregate revenue stream the more tempting it will be for the thieves in D.C. (District of Criminals) to involve themselves.

Walt

Seems Fish was looking into Colorado the same time I was. ( Hat's off to ya' )
I did find that MJ related accidents involving death are up 56%.
And also a few are using Paul's excuse to end the taxation. ( that self incrimination cry)
It got tossed out of court.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26387324/marijuana-activists-argue-pot-taxes-violate-self-incrimination

RL Crabb

Fish 9/27@8:28 - How can a pot grow clean up cost ten grand? It's government work. Wrote about a similar situation in my book, Scablands.

fish

Posted by: RL Crabb | 27 September 2014 at 09:36 AM


They treat it like meth lab clean up then? I need to change careers and grease a few democratic politicians palms!

fish

I'm going to need to pick up a copy RL!

George Rebane

JoeK 843am – Thank you for that precious comment. It contributes to this discussion on two counts – the first, your misunderstanding what I wrote, and second, the further exposure of the liberal mind’s problems with coherent systems of government.

Nowhere do I state my desire to know who is using MMJ. What I want to know is the aggregate number of MMJ users in NC, not the identities of the individuals using it – ‘how many’ does not equal ‘who’. (I’ll again just chalk this one up to careless reading, rather than lack of reading skills.) The astute reader knows that the significance of ALL social problems is based ONLY on the numbers that characterize them – the demogauging promoter would like you to ignore that and only concentrate on the emotional ephemerals. Therefore, if we voters are asked to vote on making social policy to alleviate some social problem, then we must be informed of the salient facts required to inform our decision.

The total number of prescribed MMJ users is easy to obtain by asking prescribing physicians to report the **number** of new and renewal prescriptions they write, say, every quarter. I understand that they already do that on a number of specifically controlled/monitored drugs – just add MMJ to the list. So yes, it is indeed my right as a voter to know that aggregate number before I vote on S. And if that number cannot be cited by the proponents of S, then that is also information which tells me that they’re whistling through their south portal when crying wolf about the desperate need for S.

As a progressive, you and yours have an extremely convoluted boundary between what you want government to know and not know. And as socialism makes headway in America, in the minds of progressives that boundary shifts markedly toward the government’s right to know just about damn near everything about us. We’ll keep an eye on how soon ‘how many’ shifts to ‘who’ on MMJ and the many other aspects of our lives.

BradC 822am – And you have dropped another pearl. The easy difference between your offense at the sound of gunfire and the smell of growing pot is that the gun range is an established part of the county’s recreational infrastructure. People moving into its proximity do so with full knowledge that on certain days and hours they will hear their neighbors exercising their Second Amendment rights. If you already lived there and someone wanted to build a range nearby, you would have grounds for protesting that project. On the other hand, if you move into a neighborhood with no pot grows, and no prior warning that legal pot grows may sprout next door, then you may have a valid nuisance complaint, which you would not have had you moved in next to an established pot grow. Capice?

Joe Koyote

My neighbor got busted a couple of years ago for 80 plants (no priors, no criminal record). My daughter, who was out running at the time, counted four black SUVs full of uniformed swat team types with automatic weapons drive by to arrest a 60 year old woman who was an underemployed contractor down on her luck. My daughter overheard the officers talking among themselves about how the grow was nothing near the size and quantity they were told was there, and how this must have been some kind of mistake. That's how it costs 10 grand to clean up a grow, a lack of proper intelligence (of the information type not brainpower) and a total over reaction by law enforcement.

fish

Posted by: Joe Koyote | 27 September 2014 at 09:49 AM

...and this is why it needs to be completely legalized! To combat the ham fisted tactics employed by your government.

Todd Juvinall

JoeK, if the SUV's were driving by, how did your daughter overhear their conversations and also see they were carrying automatic weapons?

I am told you can 99 plants with a recommendation anyway. And 17 pounds? Is this true?

Walt

RL.. My comment about a "ten grand deposit" for a potential renter is a direct reflection of the cost or repairs to my property. The piddly 1000 bucks that's the"norm" sure didn't cover it. Neither did my insurance.
And what good would it do to sue? No bank accounts to go after, no assets to put liens on.
The best I could do was post the persons name on a " bad renter " web site, and put photos up as proof.

I guess I don't need to worry about it anymore since I had to sell the damned place because I couldn't afford the repairs. The guy that took it off my hands has yet to finish the repairs. And that was just shy of a year ago. ( Probably due to to those nice new building requirements when a permit is pulled.)

Walt

Well Joe,, it keeps adding to my point about registration of "legal" grows. Screw what Paul keeps yapping about against it. If the cops know your grow is playing by the laws they won't come to breaks doors first and ask questions later. The fact remains there are more illegal grows than legal. Now you figure out how the cops can tell the difference.
If you want to operate in a questionable endeavor, you assume the legal risks.

BTW, back when I grew my own,( with all the legal documentations and scripts) I DID have the "man" come and see that I was in within the law, just in case someone next door, or a more than a few properties down griped. I never had a problem.
And all it took was a phone call.

Walt

On a VARY unrelated note, but must be told. Mammoth Lakes is rumbling.
Lets hope it's just a little indigestion.

fish

The "Ring of Fire" is rumbling this weekend. Japan broke wind last night (with a fatality).

Walt

The pot clan may want to stock up on their stash Fish if things get more than ugly.
Ash fall is hell on pot plants.

Thomas Beckforth

Nope Todd, 6 plants per recommendation, no LE agency will recognize a 99 plant recommendation...

George Rebane

Dear Readers, the 27sep14 sandbox is now open for business. I'll keep this post on Measure S on top as long as the interest in informative debate continues.

Paul Emery

George

Crickets from you on my concerns that the Sheriffs Dept can enter and search your property without a search warrant if they are perusing a "code" violation. If they are searching for stolen goods they need a criminal search warrant. Why the lack of concern for property rights? Because you are a stated supporter of 2349 than I assume you are a supporter of the vehicles used in it's enforcement.


Also if recreational MJ becomes legal in '16 will that change your view about MJ cultivation being a legitimate cottage industry Nevada County? There is little doubt from political observes that this will happen next election cycle.

You also refuse to acknowledge that MMJ can today be legally tendered to collectives and dispensaries in California for whatever value the market holds. Why in your view is it important to know the amount consumed by Nevada County residents? Isn't it a good thing for our economy that local growers have such a healthy and legal market statewide to distribute their products?

Your response to this has been uncharacteristically thin and lacking in substance. I assume it's a cultural boundary.

George Rebane

PaulE 1056pm - Apologies for not replying more quickly on the property search issue. I've been trying to get information on the legal aspects of the matter, but will go with the best I have right after finishing breakfast. In the interval, please continue in the relief that on RR no legitimate topic has been or will be addressed by any crickets over which I have control. Stay tuned.

[Later] On the issue of authorities’ warrantless search of private property. As explained to me by LE authorities, LE personnel are allowed to enter private property when they see from a public access vantage that there is a crime in process or criminal activity on private property. If no such evidence is apparent but LE still has reason to believe that there is criminal activity or evidence of such for a crime committed elsewhere, then they need a search warrant to enter and search the property. (Lawyers should weigh in on this interpretation.)

In 1996 California passed Prop 215 legalizing the use of MMJ, in subsequent years additional laws and initiatives were passed that covered the state and/or various jurisdictions to more precisely define MMJ users, caregivers, and suppliers. None of this legislation was either coherent or consistent. The result was a years’ long gaggle of litigation that gave rise to even more impenetrable case law that became another full employment measure for the legal profession. At that point the most practical solution for defining legitimate MMJ users and prescribing how MMJ is produced then fell to the counties. In Nevada County this gave rise to Ordinance 2349 which also defined how MMJ could be legally grown in the county. We must always keep in mind that growing and using RMJ in California is illegal according to both state and federal law (the latter prohibiting the growth and consumption of all MJ).

According to our BoS and Sheriff, to date 2349 has worked by allowing a workable balance between the grow related nuisance and patient supply/access factors for MMJ. 2349 has also facilitated the suppression of RMJ grows by its specificity in what constitutes a MMJ grow.

In replacing 2349 Measure S takes a major step back from being specific (it is silent/moot on many factors, see comparison spreadsheet), and invites the BoS to enter into another round of crafting and passing (what we here call) S+ ordinances that dovetail with S and attempt to fill in any obvious holes in what S fails to define or permit LE to enforce. In short, passing S will bring back to Nevada County all the statewide problems launched by Prop 215 twenty years ago, promising to replicate the legal battles and confusion in our county that 2349 alleviated.

Moreover, by its loosened grow protocols and omissions, S doubles down on the ambiguities that LE will have to overcome when there exists a probable cause for entering private property. In creating such confusion, S will definitely provide some relief to the county’s RMJ industry. And that, I maintain, is the main purpose for passing S. (Recall, that I promote the legalization, regulation, and taxation of RMJ as per our experience with other drugs such as ethanol and nicotine. But the RMJ issue should be addressed on its own merits and not avoided by hiding under the skirts of promoting compassionate MMJ use.)

Joe Koyote

Todd 10:15 -- It's a one lane road Todd.. not hard to look inside a vehicle 4 feet way going 5 miles an hour. As for hearing voices, the road is a loop.. She saw them as they drove in.. and heard them later when most of the officers were standing around by their vehicles in the middle of the road. They waved and said hello. Do you think everyone is a liar Todd? Is that why you ask all of the dumb questions?

Joe Koyote

fish 9:57 ".and this is why it needs to be completely legalized! To combat the ham fisted tactics employed by your government."
Just how is it "my" government.. is it not your government as well? Let me see… bad government is liberal and good government is conservative.. is that what you mean? I don't get it.

George Rebane

JoeK 1027am - let me inject an editorial interpretation here that may clarify. Your logic on "bad government is liberal and good government is conservative" is too simplistic and incorrectly interprets the apologetics of RR and its ideological cohort over the years. The arguments here have amply demonstrated that collectivism, in its inception and practice, almost invariably gives rise to bad government here in America and all over the world. On the other hand, classical liberalism (and specifically conservetarianism) gives rise to various forms of beneficent governance from which we derive what most people would call 'good government'.

In short, Republicans are not innocent of contributing to bad government. But on balance, we believe they do it less than the collectivist Democrats.

Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane, your words (and your lovely bride's) are blowing in the wind and falling on deaf ears. Excellent well reasoned post and excellent last comment @0841.
If we are talking solely about medicinal marihuana for growers with a doctor's prescription, then the topic is clear. The only ones that can legally grow 6 plants in CA and possess marihuana are patients with a script. That does not seem too hard for anyone to wrap their heads around, now does it? Oh, we can debate about square footage and setback on county parcels with 5 digit addresses. 6 plants is still 6 plants no matter which way the wind blows.

Dr. Rebane, you are making the mistake of focusing on Measure S which deals with solely the legal cultivation of medicinal pot. Many readers want to expand it to recreational marihuana and vocational grows, which is certainly not what Measure S or the current ordinance is about, but we all know that.

So, whether one smokes or grows herb for recreational use or even if one is a non inhaler but grows weed for a livelihood, I feel you are correct by saying Measure S will provide some relief for recreational marihuana cultivators. That is the gist of the illegal growers wish list.

Because of my acreage and zoning A ( not RA or AR), I am allowed 600 square feet to legally farm 6 plants if I had a doctor's recommendation posted clearly and followed setback rules. No problem. A 20x30 garden would be cramped, but adequate. I realize most folks do not have the back 40 or so acres and their zoning is different than mine. There is a school bus turnaround about a mile away. With all this said, I cannot grow 7 plants for my consumption even following all the rules. That is the rub. Forget county rules. State law is state law and it has been illegal to grow 7 plants without or without a doctor's recommendation for decades. That just pisses people off. The illegal cultivators of medical marihuana or recreational marihuana or those that make their living off selling marihuana on the black market want/demand/long for the day when they are not only tolerated and accepted but rather, they can be declared legit and legal. Until that time, the illegal growers and consumers should focus on changing State law and quit nitpicking county regulations trying to pull a fast one to condone what they are doing.

Todd Juvinall

JoeK, 10:20am. I was taught there were no dumb questions but only dumb answers. You fit the bill. If your explanation is not totally made up from whole cloth then your uncle is a monkey. Please, one lane road, seeing automatic weapons, overhearing conversations, jeeze! They don't let civilians anywhere close so you friend is full of petunias. And you believed it so you must be as well.

George Rebane

BTW, anyone wanting to read some after-action reports on the legalization of MJ, please google 'the legalization of marijuana in Colorado the impact' for a snootful of excellent references, pdfs of formal reports, and serious articles on the topic. The links cover more than just Colorado.

Walt

Took your advice and went through that pdf. It mirrors what I have been saying all along.
And the locals want that here?
Not so damned "safe",,, is it? And some of the excuses given for the said recommendations,
one sticks out.. "ankle problems"..

It all about profit. When grows got the "green light" it's shipped all across the land.
Legal dispensaries to the "ill" selling to whoever walks in the door.( pre rec. legal )
And that won't happen here?

As stated before, " Don't Colorado Nevada Co."

fish

Just how is it "my" government.. is it not your government as well? Let me see… bad government is liberal and good government is conservative.. is that what you mean? I don't get it.

It is "the" government Joe and I think that if you've been paying attention you would have to acknowledge the I'm clearly not conservative. I would trim government back to a point that it would be largely unrecognizable to those like yourself who think it should right every social ill but leave pot and pot growers alone.

fish

In a "fish" government this wouldn't occur.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-28/why-usda-buying-submachine-guns

I've yet to hear Joe complain about government other than the size and scope of the military and its actions and traditional law enforcement (weed cops). I can only assume that as long as USDA cops confine themselves to matters not marijuana related then you are OK with the activities mentioned as likely in the linked article.

Bill Tozer

Now is the time to recite the old bumper sticker that read "I love my country, but fear my government." Think that is a truism most can agree with. Believe it was John Adams or some other old timer that said "A patriot's first duty is to protect his country from his government". Now days such beliefs would be labeled treasonous by the far left Marxists government worshipers.

Paul Emery

George

Just back from working sound tech at the Celtic Festival. it was a true Irish weekend with welcome "mist". In Ireland they would say it's was a "fresh"day.

Not much time to respond tonight to your 8:41 but it's apparent you don't know the difference between a Criminal search warrant which you described in detail and one that is intended to enforce a "regulation".
Exceeding the limits of 2439 is a code violation not a criminal one. 2439 allows the sheriffs dept to enter and search ones property without the presumption that a "crime" is being committed therefore making it easy to search property with no presumption that a criminal act is being committed. The reality is that police can inter private property based only on a presumed complaint that someone doesn't like the smell in the air. 2439 is a nuisance ordinance not a criminal one but oddly allows police much greater freedom to enter private property. I hope this explains it getter to you. It's a crucial distinction that should raise the hackles of any property rights activist such as yourself.

George Rebane

PaulE 923pm - Thanks for the review Paul, but I do know the difference between regulatory inspection and a criminal search warrant. What you need to cite is chapter and verse from where you get the reality that "police can inter(sic) private property based only on a presumed complaint that someone doesn't like the smell in the air." The reality is that neither police nor code compliance inspectors can enter your property without showing probable cause that there is a violation on said property. Your stating that a "presumed complaint" is all that is needed doesn't make it so, but does keep the pot boiling (pun intended).

BTW, are you suggesting that passing S would somehow restore the property rights you claim are being violated under 2349 enforcement? Or is this just a diversion for us to stop our critical comparison of S and 2349?

Paul Emery

George

George your comments at

Sheriff Royal said that "inspections" of private property would be complaint driven under 2439 during the Supervisors meeting that debated toe ordinance. It was a major part of the Sheriffs pitch before the vote . Also the nature and name of the person complaining need not be revealed. My somewhat dramatic statement that all the police need is presumed complaint of a bad smell is factually true. Unlike a criminal warrant to presumption that a crime is being committed is necessary.
when the code enforcement team knocks on your door they do not have to show probable cause that a violation is being committed.

You wrote today at 8:1 that " On the issue of authorities’ warrantless search of private property. As explained to me by LE authorities, LE personnel are allowed to enter private property when they see from a public access vantage that there is a crime in process or criminal activity on private property. If no such evidence is apparent but LE still has reason to believe that there is criminal activity or evidence of such for a crime committed elsewhere, then they need a search warrant to enter and search the property."

That is about a criminal warrants. Your lack of discussion of code warrants made me believe you didn't understand my concerns.

Paul Emery

serious typo

" Unlike a criminal warrant requiring presumption that a crime is being committed to be issued,
when the code enforcement team knocks on your door they do not have to show probable cause that a violation is being committed."

D. Smith

Bill, the only problem is that you can only grow 6 plants in 600sq foot space, so if there are more than one recommendation needed you're screwed.....

D. Smith

Oh, and one other thing....

Nevada County has @2,200 school bus stops in their records, and considering that there are only 110 "active" school bus stops currently being used, but the county uses all 2,200 when enforcing this ordinance.

Even though many of these bus stops have not been used since 1952.

Walt

Check out google earth Paul, The same thing the county uses looking for un-permitted buildings. "probable cause". A pot patch seen from an aircraft. " probable cause".
Where dope is concerned there is no presumption of innocence that one is growing legally.
The doper better be playing by the stated rules of MMJ.
The smell of growing weed is now permeating from a location not far from me.. How the hell do I know if it's just a legal grow or not? Dollars to donuts it's not. It's sure not a dead skunk rotting on the fog line.
All a cop needs to do is park along the side of the road and inhale. " probable cause".
Your against ANY way to distinguish the legal grows from the illegal. ( your Mendocino excuse)
You better figure out how to get your legal growers to make themselves known to LE.,
otherwise don't bitch.

The "man" isn't after the four plants in the back yard. ( which is plenty for the average MMJ user. I know..)

Bill Tozer

Mr. Paul. Warrants, warrants. Enshrined in our Constitution. Probable cause and all that stuff. We don't own the air above our homes. Even North San Juan Jerry Brown agrees that we need to give law enforcement every tool to nab the bad guys. His experience as Mayor of Oakland taught him a thing or two about society's criminal element, the scourge of a civilized society and threat to the moral fabric necessary for democracy to survive

http://news.yahoo.com/california-governor-vetoes-drone-warrant-bill-042151386.html?soc_src=copy

Bill Tozer

Ms. Smith. I won't be screwed. 6 plants is more than adequate if I choose to legally
cultivate marimangina. That's 9 pounds plus of dope. More than enough. Nobody smokes dope 24 hours a day, especially since the very ill sleep so much. If I were to obtain a second prescription for a terminally ill family member or a homeless disabled Nam vet, 10 plants would fit nicely in a 600 square foot garden with room for the riding lawnmower to drive around the pot plants. That's over 15 pounds of dope, perhaps 18 pounds. How many ounces to a pound?

I must thank you, Ms. Smith, for making my point. State law says 6 marihuana plants and you want 2 scripts. Give some people an inch and they take a mile. Always pushing the envelop. Like arguing with a teenager whose frontal lobe had not fully developed over curfew. Thank you again for making my point.

Brad C.

Bill, it sounds like you have a green thumb, But those production numbers you are throwing around are arbitrary, made up numbers.
What does a patient do when, all of a sudden, the county "takes" their property rights away by arbitrarily coming up with the "bus stop" setback? They have to find a caregiver. So, that is where a caregiver comes in - and they need more room to grow in order to help the people who rent (and respect landlord's wishes not to grow on the rental property), and those excluded by the size and/or locatlion of their dwelling property.

Walt

Uh,, No Brad, those numbers are pretty good. Been there, done that.
The setbacks are no different than the "setbacks" on shooting on one's own property.
That constitutes "taking" too,,, doesn't it? ( as I recall you bitched about hearing gunfire.. But the smell of dope for three months out of the year 24/7 is OK in your book.)

George Rebane

PaulE 1022pm – (I believe you’re referring to Ordinance 2349 not 2439.) At last week’s meeting the sheriff reiterated that their enforcement of 2349 is complaint driven. But that a smell from a legal grow is not sufficient grounds for issuing a citation for “abatement” (i.e. chopping down the plants). If the grow is legal, then the sheriff said that “we walk away”. That is pretty much as it has been for ordinances covering a gazillion other manufacturing processes and constructs on private property for at least a hundred years. Pro-S people don’t complain that their legal grows are egregiously inspected; their complaints center around 2349 being too restrictive in how many plants can be grown where.

Your implied point is that somehow 2349 has more onerous provisions that give rise to inspections than will S. But your crickets answer on this point, and inspecting the details of S doesn’t support this claim, explicit or implied. So again, what is you point in bringing up the inspection issue that has not been a concern of legal MMJ growers?

And DSmith’s 1058pm concern is unwarranted until we know how many people in the county are legal MMJ users, and moreover, is there any record of our legal MMJ users not being able to satisfy their prescribed medical needs? The same commenter’s 1102pm goes off the rails on the school bus stop claim. The Union annually publishes the current year’s bus stops, and 2349 provides only for the current working bus stops, not a legacy list that goes back to 1952. Another wild claim for which evidence is needed.

BradC’s 836am represents a real situation, but we don’t know how often that happens. It is though a pleasure to see a liberal suddenly argue for property rights when their life is a litany of supporting government’s rollback of property rights in all other aspects. (‘You can’t just one day set up a pig sty in your backyard in the middle of a developed neighborhood, now can you?’) In any event, since MJ is easy to grow and so prolific in the county, removing one legitimate MMJ user’s ability to grow on their property should not pose too much of a problem since other sources of MMJ abound. However, such a sudden restriction would put a hitch in the MMJ user’s ability to generate a little extra income by selling her excess into the RMJ market. Again it is the numbers that define the problem. And remember if the data supports it, the BoS can simply amend 2349 as yet another tweak to rebalance between the legitimate MMJ use, neighborhood nuisance, and community health/safety need. Not possible with Measure S.

I again draw your kind attention to my 804am, 944am, 841am comments which expand on the real differences between 2349 and S, most of which understandably draw crickets from the pro-S folks.

Bill Tozer

Brad, sucks to be them. Or, just go out and buy a big Rancho de Grande. There is always a solution to every problem. Like if you don't like the fact that your neighbors are cutting down tress on their property which you have enjoyed looking at for years out your kitchen window, just go buy their land. Simple and uncomplicated. Or go build a greenhouse and do the year round thang.

Yes, I do have a green thumb, but my forte is succulents and now native wildflowers from the Great Plains, New Mexico, Turkey, South Africa's only ski resort, Syria, and my latest addition is two perennials from the western slopes of the Himalayas. I love perennial flowers that grow in harsh environments. Takes way less water, low fertility soil, less work and more bang for the buck in this soil.. And longer blooming season. Thank you for asking.
As far as growing marihuana, too much work and I don't care for annuals, not even California Golden Poppies. To each his own.

Bill Tozer

Ps to Brad. From my prior wayward days of yore, if you ain't getting at least 1.5 pounds of trimmed bud per plant you are in the wrong business. I just gave that stuff away and never saw a penny. Grew only for the learning experience and challenge and don't like pot. Natural high from flower gardens and bird/wildlife watching is my drug of choice, but I digress again. Of course, if you started late and planted Indica in the middle of June, you can only expect a pound per plant. Gotta grow them for bud, not leaf, and nothing like those foot long colas glistening in the sun. Well, almost as nice as my perennials coming into there own when everyone's flower garden looks like crap with 3 foot gorgeous flower stalks swaying in the wind in the dog days of summer. Weed ain't a challenge.

But, my guerrilla growing days are behind me know, I have so much more to think about...deadlines and commitments, what to leave in and what to leave out...Hey, that would make a good song. Gotta go. The maid and the housekeeper are fighting again. I knew I should have never hired ex Playboy Bunnies. They are high maintenance I tell ya.

Paul Emery

George write:

" But that a smell from a legal grow is not sufficient grounds for issuing a citation for “abatement” (i.e. chopping down the plants)."

Correct George but it does qualify for a search of the odorous property upon which an abatement can then be issued. I can't believe you are supporting an ordinance that allows Police to search private property based on a smell. Once again I have to note that the "complaint" need not be included as part of the record justifying the search. I was not comparing ordinances only commenting on the nature of the beast we have created in 2349, something ignored by our so called champions of property rights.

Once again George would you be supportive of Cul;tivation being a cottage industry in Nevada County if RMJ were legalized?

Don Bessee

The pot profiteers pet shark munkelt has filed suit to delay the distribution of sample ballots and to suddenly change the language because they don't think its fair???? Hearing 830am Oct 1st. Does this ever smack of desperation since they are loosing in the court of public opinion and lost their last injunction try just a week ago. Their show at the NC theatre was a dud and the media has too much brad pecimer-glasse, ASA's VP for profit pot farm case as well as excellent editorials that tell too much truth for the ASA's taste. Oh, but they have to be treated special and don't have to follow any rules because its all about patients right? They have had the language for quite a while so why now? What's next, injunctions on everyone to stop telling the world what measure S does and does not do in the real world? Just a note of clarification, 2349 is a code issue and not criminal, when deputies visit a property after a neighbor complaint they are not going on a criminal issue, just like code coming out and confirming too much solid waste that needs clean up. If the sheriff encounters a criminal issue they have to back off and call for a judges search warrant. Two very different processes.

Paul Emery

One more thing George, why is it important to know the number of MMD in Nevada County in relation to the availability or product? Cultivators can legally grow for person or collective in the state provided they have legal recommendations.

"And DSmith’s 1058pm concern is unwarranted until we know how many people in the county are legal MMJ users, and moreover, is there any record of our legal MMJ users not being able to satisfy their prescribed medical needs? " Rebane 9:19

George Rebane

PaulE 1009am - Since I'm not making any headway, perhaps reading DonB's 1026am might help. Your crickets continuing to imply that S will somehow fix the property rights problem says it all about the thrust of your inquiry.

Re my supporting MJ cultivation as a cottage industry, I've already answered that many times in my general support of legalizing RMJ. So one more time - yes, presuming RMJ consumption is legalized, I would support such a cottage industry if it can be regulated so as to balance the neighborhood nuisance and community health/safety concerns. (Much in the same way I would support any residential manufactory/shop that doesn't lower the neighbors' QoL.)

Re your 1026am - Paul, you're not reading my comments. I already responded to that need to inform voters of the salient facts surrounding an item on which they are asked to vote. You and the S people claim that there is a MMJ access problem in Nevada County. Where is the evidence for the scope and magnitude of such a problem? Numbers instead of emotional hot air please.

Bill Tozer

Paul, you have the first post on this thread and you started right off the bat by saying you are opposed to both ordinances. That is clear. You just don't want the cops involved. What, you expect the honor system to work? I believe you have too much faith in the human condition and some thing like we are all born good. Perhaps in the company you keep all folks want to do good and be honest and play by the rules, but that is not the case in some of the circles I use to run with.

Since this person is now deceased, I will tell you a story. Chap died at 41 years old and I saw his obit in TheUnion a couple years back. Had a neighbor that was wailing on his nympho girlfriend I nicknamed Miss Piggy. She was crying out for help. At first I thought they were having their usual wild loud kinky sex, but the cries for help grew louder and I knew he was really thumping on her. So, I called the police. The dispatcher asked if I wanted to remain anonymous and I replied "yes". The cops came, questioned the suspect and victim and hauled him off in handcuffs. That was a case of a citizen's complaint who was not named. Good thing for me and the victim as he was a bit on the angry high spirited side. Even later had a neighbor come to the door who never been over before and said "I want to thank you on behalf of all the battered women for what you did." Don't know how she found out, but she did.
Nothing different than someone calling in anonymously for a child welfare check or reporting a possible meth lab. But you say keep LE out of it. I would rather deal with LE any day of the week than with the building department or health code county Nazis running amok. At least LE are reasonable, trained to deal with conflict and have the freedom to show discretion and turn a blind eye on a case by case basis.

I have heard whiners scream bloodily murder that LE were harassing them when citing them for a taillight or being over zealous. Never mind the whiners were in the wrong. My experience is not that way in the least. They have never been jerks to me in the least. Can't tell you how many LE officers from all parts of this nation have let me go with a fix it ticket or told me to take care of an expired tag without a search or being nonprofessional. The only times I ended up on the cement floor of the pokey is when I was being a confrontational jerk and deserved big time more than I got. Show respect to the uniform, call them sir (even to the young kids) and they always respond In kind and call me Mister. Let them know off the bat you are a good guy not one of the bad guys and tell them the truth.

Heck, I got pulled over by an Auburn LE going 51 in a 25. The officer asked if I noticed the 14 foot construction signs saying 25 mph and I said no. He asked me how fast I was going and I told him I was going 51 when he got behind me. He ran the check and came back and said because I told him the truth, he was letting me go with a warning and the usual drive safety talk.

Noticed the recent pro S dude got a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest tacked on. Bet he was being a jerk. He had to submit to an inspection (not participate) and now he has the IRS on his tail. Not good Maynard....could have ended up better for him if he used some common sense. LE is not the enemy. Hiding the truth is the enemy.

Paul Emery

George

I must correct you. I am not an "s" person. I only asked why is the knowledge of local needs a "salient fact" to decide how to vote on this matter?

You still are avoiding the property rights issue of 2349 that allows the entry searching of private property without a search warrant. I take it by your silence that support such applications of the hammer of law enforcement options.

Besse confirms the scenario I have described. Smell complaint-search of property. Thanks Don for the support.

Also George your 10:37 seems to imply support for the EIR process that you spoke against when it came to the San Juan Mine. You are more of a socialist than I thought when it comes to your back yard.

"I would support such a cottage industry if it can be regulated so as to balance the neighborhood nuisance and community health/safety concerns."

Don Bessee

Wrong Paul, I am not confirming that a smell complaint results in a property search. It only allows inspection of the pot patch, again, if there are criminal issues they have to meet the threshold for a judge to issue a search warrant. That allows a full property search, not 2349. You are playing martin webbs game and trying to mix the criminal aspects with the land use issues. This is a land use issue and nothing more. S is all about profits and not patients no matter how often the big lie is repeated.

George Rebane

PaulE 1103am - With that logic, reasoned discussion goes off the rails. I in no way support what today is "the EIR process" - it is abhorrent from all angles. But I do support common sense conservation or established life styles and the environment. Today's EIR process is bereft of common sense and does nothing but serve the interest of what we may label as Agenda21 proponents.

You have ignored my 1037am so there is no profit in circling that barn again, and crickets are still responding to Measure S' implied solution to the property rights problem.

But the fundamental aspect of these left/right discussions is that the Left has no understanding of a nuanced solution, it is either a 0 or 1. For progressives only binary alternatives exist - if one eschews a 0, then he must clearly be a strong advocate for 1, and vice versa. To proceed profitably we must bring in such things a culture, tradition, situational judgment, ... that have long organized society in place of the crappy crafting of detailed laws and codes which prove totally inimical in their application. In light of this, it's tough to make progress.

Paul Emery

Don

You are falling off the edge here. In order to find the pot patch you have to search the property. Jeez, that's simple to understand. those who have had checks all say that their entire property is checked including their house, garage and outbuildings. If that's not a search what is?

George

I am not a supporter of Prop S so why should I have to defend it?
George, what kind of "process" do you envision that would fulfill your vision as expressed in your 10:37

"I would support such a cottage industry if it can be regulated so as to balance the neighborhood nuisance and community health/safety concerns. "

Sounds like the essence of an EIR to me. Can you elaborate or is it just a general idea that we should strive to live in harmony but if not bring in the bayonets.
George, still no comment on violations of property rights as a result of 2349 enforcement.


Walt

Dementia has set in, or Paul can no longer comprehend the written word. Seems that Irish swill has done it's damage.

The good Doc. has nailed it. LIBS crying foul where property rights and getting rousted by the "G" man are concerned. Welcome to that Socialistic utopia. Your getting a small taste of it. Now enjoy.
Want to grow dope? Get a permit.

Walt

I recall well when the "paulites" had NO problem with the ECO gang trespassing, looking for possible "endangered" critters, fauna, vernal pools, etc. when Izzy and the gang were pushing NH2020. Then the restrictions of "property rights" was the name of the game.
What about the property rights when IMM was looking to give us jobs? Or the property rights of the Blue Lead Mine? What was used to run them out of town? Nuisance claims. "noise.. dust, quality of life of thy neighbor."
Now when it's YOUR ox that's being gored, you cry from the tallest of the trees about "property rights" and "regulations".
MY O MY... How the tune has changed.

Paul Emery

Gosh Walt

You guys were my hero's standing up so proud and strong against the evils of of big government and assaults on our property rights. Whats a guy to believe in when hero's turn to wimps because of pungence allowing the fumigtors to romp freely to eradicate the evil smells.

I'm sure you would have no problem today with NH2020 enforcers entering private property because you have paved the way with your support of 2349. Don't complain when the same tactics are used for other reasons.

A. Patriot

Big Lie, Don? Is this willful manipulation of the Ballot process by the Supes, Sheriff and maybe County Counsel? Maybe this needs to be reviewed by the State Attorney General's Office. If this is found to be the case, they need to be censured or impeached. If guilty of these egregious violations of the very principles this country was founded on, they have committed a crime against every citizen of this county and they should also be held liable for any costs incurred by the Taxpayers. http://yubanet.com/regional/Proponents-file-legal-challenge-to-ballot-language-for-Measure-S-and-motion-to-delay-mailing-ballots.php#.VCm2uBbp9io

Paul Emery

George

To make this simple I am not a supporter of prop s types of endeavors because it is not the job of citizens to write laws. It's the job of our elected representatives. I would have been in total support of a citizens repeal of 2349 through the initiative process to send it back to the Supes for a rewrite or natural death.

Walt

Well Paul,,, one big, important thing is DOPE,,IS,, ILLEGAL!!!!! unless you can prove it's for medical. Good GOD man. Are you mixing that Irish whiskey with 1969 vintage LSD?

We know how mining is trying to be outlawed, but the LIBS have yet to make it so.
Better dig out that illegal gold within that box your pecking away at. Lose that cell phone as well.

As they say,, "what's good for the goose,,,,, " Go back in LIB time and see all the restrictions of property rights your side of the fence has already imposed. And now you bitch about this one lone issue?
Yes,, that pony tail has been pulled way too tight.

Don Bessee

A. Patriot? Really? Sounds like a pot profiteer. It seems the gang who cant grow straight is just at the same old, same old. First its we are going to have an out of cycle ballot prop if you don't do what we say and cost the County 100k. Then its the first law suit that went no where. Now we have a wild swing a week ago for an injunction that again went no where, that they did not want to talk about after failing. Now we have another munkelt desperation play. Considering how poorly he did in abatement hearings the profiteers have never fared well in court. We shall see if the streak continues wed. wont we. BLAH BLAH BLAH sounds like Braad Picemer-Glasse when he said he was going to sue me, French, Supervisor Schofeld and the Sheriff and take away our homes and cars and pensions. How'd that work out brad? Listen to Sheriff Royal on KNCO Thursday Oct. 2nd 1 to 2pm on Measure S.

Paul Emery

Walt

Growing MJ is not illegal if it's for medicinal purposes and documented with recommendations. If it's sold for recreational purpose then it's a law enforcement problem so let them figure it out. 2349 has nothing to do with that. It you have the scripts you can grow six plants per recommendation and be in compliance with State law.

George Rebane

PaulE 131pm - for that same reason I will not start 'writing' and then debating MJ cottage industry regulations. Life's too short, but I will evaluate what the pros have written.

Since I too believe that 2349 can be improved, a "citizens repeal of 2349" sounds interesting. Am not sure in what order things would happen so that there remains some basis in the interval besides the inadequate MMJ provisions in the state and follow on case laws. Maybe that is still something to consider after S is defeated. But I'm still interested in what the problem is with the current 2349 that the BoS cannot fix through amendments (as radical as they need be, including rewriting the damn thing completely).

Walt

" unless you can prove it's for medical" Miss that part Paul? Your getting to the point where the term "certifiable" may come into play. It's just about strait jacket time, and a 72 hour evaluation may be in order. " What does this ink blot look like?" What does this sentence say, and what do you think it says?"
Did Keach share that Labrador joint with you at the Celtic fest?
It's time you spend some time back on the illegal war front. You say you don't smoke dope, but by the looks of things here,, that is more than questionable.

A. Patriot

Don, you miss the point entirely as you often do. My post did not concern pot, either recreational or medicinal. It concerned the potential manipulation of a Ballot Measure by elected officials and improper use of their office. What the ballot is/was about is moot. The point is that willful manipulation of the process via the presentation of biased information is reprehensible, and elected officials should be called to task for violating our trust.

Walt

A.P. You mean like the LIBS in Sac. do all the time? Plenty of ballots measures have been passed, then one LIB judge nullifies all those votes.

Paul Emery

Pretty simple Walt. You don't seem to have a comprehension of the State Law as it is currently practiced. You have obviously had more recent exposure to the effects of herbal medication than I have so perhaps that contributes to your difficulty in understanding the details of the law.

Don Bessee

A. Patriot, given the language has been available for nearly 2 months one has to wonder what novel legal theory you are trying to parrot with your evasive 220pm post. Of course its all about the issue at hand. The ASA flat out lied in theirs but the point is they are ballot ARGUMENTS. Duh. Something tells me you did not vote for any of the Supervisors who signed the No on S statement, perhaps T.L. who just lost? What evidence do you present to support your blather?

Walt

LOL Paul,, Your the one who thinks it's a right to grow dope. Hell. You can't comprehend a sentence. Nice case of tunnel vision. What part of " if you can prove it's for med." didn't you understand?

A. Patriot

Don, Obviously it is not up to me to present evidence, that is and will be handled by attorneys. What I've seen published publicly is enough to convince me. I'm very interested in your evidence to support the lies you allege, so that I may consider whatever you have fairly. Go on, make my day. It seems to me that you have also had the ASA argument for quite a while, so why have you not legally challenged their statements? The language to be used in presenting the Ballot Measure seems to be clear, and it seems clear that it must be unbiased. Obviously arguments for and against are biased, that is EXACTLY why public officials are prohibited from using THEIR OFFICE to influence voters. What they do personally is not my concern. No, I didn't vote for T.L. I'm not in his district. I also don't see what I'm evading. It's really hard to see how your drivel about profiteering, a guy named Brad and getting sued for your house, car and pension fits into all this.

Walt

Paul. It the sheriff fighting an "illegal war" on pot growers?

Don Bessee

Brad,Martin and the pot profiteers propaganda chief Pattie have everything to do with this. You have clearly failed to read the motion. The main argument is that it is false that S will increase the amount grown, no really that's munkelts claim. His unique focus is on the R1,2,3 zones. Yet fails to address the fact that RA who's primary function in land use code is residential will be dumped in with AG land that has a secondary residential use and a massive increase in grows. In addition they fail to address the time bomb in Measure S and that's the switch of zones airport, commercial, business park, SDA and industrial suddenly go from NO grow zones to NO LIMITS OF ANY KIND. Then there is also issue of allowing indoor and outdoor grows on the same property. As is always the case with the pot profiteers they hide behind the smoke screen and only focus as best they can on something fuzzy and out of context. I am confident that the County Council will remind the judge about those other zones that will have massive increases allowed under S. When you claim that elected officials engaged in the activities you claim you better show up with more than a link to the pot profiteers propaganda poo bahs press release.

Walt

If it's "all about the patients",, what's grown here, STAYS here. How bout those apples?
Any selling out of the county should be unlawful. Add that to the mix. There is PLENTY grown in the state to "satisfy" the likes of Sac. Berkeley, S.F., L.A. San Diego,,
We are not the only game in the state.

Bill Tozer

Mr. Paul, Mr. Walt did bring up an interesting question that you ignored. Please, pray tell, answer the question: What does this ink blot look like? :). Oh Walt, that one has me rolling no matter who it was directed at and Mr. Paul was a good sport about it. Progress has been made.

Paul, when is your gig in November? I am going only because I said I would and a man is only as good as his word. Can't wait to hear the talented Peter Wilson. Just play in the background and try to keep up there Paul and hit only a few sour notes. :). Might even let the maid out of the dog run and cut her loose on the crowd. A wild one she is and has that gay eye for this straight guy when she dresses me all up. First week in November is all I can remember. Getting old timers.When and where does the Wrinkle Village People Band play? I even will bring you a bottle of Irish Geritol to warm ye ole pumping.

Don Bessee

You got it Walt! Our Water, Our Medicine, Our Patients First! That should be the Cry! Patties claims they do not have enough medicine are ringing off the hillsides and now munkelt argues in his moving papers that it is likely that pot production will go down if Measure S passes?!?!? Well like the old saying goes- how do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving! :-) I need to get a legal opinion on this, perhaps we could ban exporting to help ensure our poor patients have enough medicine. That would cut production and help in the drought emergency wouldn't it!

A. Patriot

I need look no further than the County website and the ballot information published to find bias. Measure S does NOT read NO LIMITS of ANY KIND - that is a lie and a scare tactic. Measure S contains no reference to Airport, Commercial, Business Park, SDA and industrial areas. No doubt this allows the County to determine how they want to handle future legitimate businesses in these zones under commerce codes and business permitting, and protects the county from hamstringing itself when future economic opportunities, either medical or recreational (such as a much needed dispensary) are considered. This measure is about MEDICAL cannabis, cultivated by individuals and collectives, not about commercial enterprises in business parks.

http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/bos/district1/Pages/Argument-Opposed-to-Measure-S.aspx

http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/bos/district2/Pages/Argument-Opposed-to-Measure-S.aspx

http://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_County_Medical_Marijuana_Cultivation,_Measure_S_%28November_2014%29

http://www.theunion.com/news/13220456-113/county-measure-ballot-cultivation

Walt

Mr. B.. I'm sure the answer would be a pot leaf. ( even though the true answer would be an "ink blot".)

Paul Emery

George

I'm curious why you don't comment on the enforcement tactics authorized by 2349 and how that affects property rights. Is this a practice you would consider to enforce other nuisance codes ? To date there have been hundreds of enforcement visits over the last three years. What is it that you feel justifies this kind of this kind of police action.

Walt

"Production goes down if "S" passes? " That makes as much sense as the Sun coming up in the West. Funny thing about "ordinances",, if it doesn't expressly say "NO",, then anything "yes" is fair game. That's how they work. If something is restricted "there", yet there is no mention of "here", that pretty much says "OK". That's how these games are played.
That's why plenty of laws are reams of paper deep.( in restrictions)

At least shooting on ones property is written with basic language., and the amendment that followed to clear up the ambiguity.
( I made a copy and nailed it to my outside wall just in case I had an "inspection" by the sheriff.)

Don Bessee

Someone please direct the 'self proclaimed patriot' to Mrs. R's excellent break out, page 1, 3/4 of the way down. The County had nothing to do with measure S crafting so how can it reflect their plans? As County Council said last week at the Rood Center event, the reason there was No growing in those zones was they are for legitimate business and not pot growing that is supposed to be for personal use and non-commercial. Even though we all know its just about all illegal commercial growing for profit. We have a ban on dispensaries in all cities and unincorporated areas of Nevada County. Keep on trying to sell that this is just about medical weed. Just like the ASA's VP kept trying to sell right on up the felony search warrant being served on his for profit pot farm. You guys are funny even if you have no sense of humor and just make us laugh with your ludicrous claims its all about patients and medicine.

Walt

And just what "enforcement tactics" are you griping about Paul? Right now there is NO WAY to tell a legal op. from an ILLEGAL op. Yet you REFUSE to address that issue.( go ahead and revisit "Mendocino"...Again....)

Don.. I'm surprised my little addition hasn't been thought of before. ( What is grown here as MMJ, stays here as MMJ) It's not that hard of a concept to brainstorm.
Only the profiteers would take issue. Granny down in the Bay, can get it there, and that ten pounds for the year doesn't need to be delivered from here. Mendocino sends plenty to the bay. The hills of San Jose put out just as much as we do, and shipping is a lot cheaper.

Now lets here from the stoner section of just how "inhumane" my little plan is.

George Rebane

PaulE 446pm - the hundreds of illegal RMJ grows in the county and the number of nuisance calls to the sheriff. That's about as close as I can come to it.

Walt 450pm and DonB 516pm - You are both on the mark, but that doesn't mean that liberal minds are receptive to any of it. Nevertheless, this comedy turned farce needs to play itself out, and we need to be in there with counterpoints for the sake of readers who are still trying to decide how to vote.

Walt

Seems even the "legal" grows are subject to the Rico Act
"Just compensation" is no excuse for tax evasion. ( yet no one has defined "just compensation") LIBS love taxes so how come they don't want to PAY them?
LIBS have despised "property rights" up until THEIRS gets trod upon. Just listen to Paul Howl! It's just fine when mine property owners get the shaft.
If a mine needs an EIR or any other new ag. operation, why not MMJ growers? What makes them special? MJ uses chemicals too. ( yes, fertilizer is a chemical) There are run off concerns into waterways. Grading permits? They haul in "fill" by the truck load,, What makes these guys immune?

The comments to this entry are closed.