Thoughts on Marijuana and Measure S

George Rebane

Measure S to replace Nevada County’s current Ordinance 2349 specifying how medicinal marijuana (MMJ) has become our community’s latest cause celebre and also the casus belli between the pro and anti Measure S factions.  Measure S is a public initiative on the November ballot to replace the current 2349.  Both S and 2349 deal only with growing MMJ in the county.  Growing recreational marijuana (RMJ) for fun and profit is illegal everywhere in California.  Access to 2349, Measure S, and a side-by-side comparison of the S and 2349 provisions is available here.

Before S arrived on the scene, I never thought I would become so interested in the MMJ issue.  My thoughts on MJ and the legalization of drugs in general was declared some time ago (here) and should be no mystery to RR readers.  (Full disclosure: neither Jo Ann nor I have been or are marijuana users.)  My interest has grown in MJ use since moving to one of the world’s prime MJ growing areas, and becoming involved in the county’s politics primarily as a conservetarian blogger, commentator, and speaker.  So let me meander a bit on this latest dust devil on our main street that is trying to grow up into a cyclone.  I’ll try to be structured so readers can easily reference their comments to the various parts of this piece.

1. Last Tuesday (23sep14) there were two ‘information sessions’ on S and 2349 – one sponsored by the pro-S (at Nevada Theater) and the other by anti-S (at Rood Center).  I attended and reported on the anti-S affair.  Now the League of Women Voters will sponsor a debate on the matter on the eve of 16 October at the Rood Center.  (Apparently the same kind of debate as recently proposed by The Union and KVMR for the Rood Center was not as acceptable as the upcoming one by the LWV.  Oh well.)

2. The efficacy of MMJ for medical purposes, and the legality of prescribed use of MMJ are not an issue.  Only at issue are the factors surrounding the growing of MMJ.  The county’s position on growing MMJ revolves around neighborhood nuisance and enforceability factors.  The county maintains that the current 2349 strikes the proper balance between the interests of MMJ users, growers, and the growers’ neighbors.  The pro-S people maintain that 2349 is too restrictive, ambiguous, and does not provide sufficient supply for the county’s MMJ users.  (The insufficient supply aspect was raised in the 26sep14 Union by Ms Patricia Smith, president of the local Americans for Safe Access pro-MMJ group.)

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?)  Given the number of illegal RMJ grows in the county, and the frequent tell-tale smell of RMJ and RMJ users in the community, I assume that our recreational users number in the thousands and greatly outnumber the MMJ users.

4. Growing RMJ is arguably the largest and most profitable ‘agricultural’ business in the county, and most certainly the largest illegal revenue producing private enterprise.  Neither side disputes that RMJ money contributes significantly to the county’s retail economy, especially in its hospitality and ag supply sectors.  I want to insert here that both law enforcement (LE) and the drug cartels strongly agree in opposing the legalization of RMJ production and consumption for the same reason – it’s the money.  Both sides know how to manage their respective risks and play the cat & mouse game at the proper level of intensity to satisfy their constituencies.  Although the LE side must maintain the respectable visage and argue that drug enforcement, incarceration, and remediation bureaucracies are unique in that, unlike other government bureaucracies, they have no motivation to grow in size, scope, and power.  The cartels are not so burdened with respect to their profit motive.

5. Given the variety of MJ plants possessing different amounts/ratios of organic chemicals that are alternately beneficial for medicinal purposes as opposed to providing the desirable high for recreational use, our RMJ growers, with unknown frequency, pose as MMJ growers displaying posted prescriptions and certificates at their grows as called for by 2349.  The anti-S people summarize this in their slogan ‘It’s not about medicine.’  Remember, growing RMJ in California is illegal according to both state and federal law.

6. Sheriff Keith Royal readily admits that LE’s biggest problem is finding the right “balance” for MMJ grows that 1) satisfies the legitimate needs of MMJ users, and 2) the legitimate nuisance and safety concerns of the public.  To find this balance has been a ‘cut and try’ process since legal MMJ growing in various jurisdictions nationwide is a relatively new area of code enforcement.  The benefits of regulating MMJ grows under 2349 is that it is relatively easy to amend as the county gains experience and new considerations arise.  This is evident through the ordinance’s existing history of amendments.  The Board of Supervisors passed 2349, and as such they can amend it at their pleasure.  This is not the case for S.

7. A comparison of S and 2349 (see above) readily reveals that S greatly loosens the requirements on MMJ growers imposed by 2349, either through specific numerical pro-grower callouts or simply being silent on many factors affecting the grows and their neighbors.  Since Measure S will be a regulation by voter initiative, it can only be changed through another voter initiative in a future election.  Pro-S supporters answer that there is nothing to prevent the BoS to pass a new ordinance that dovetails with S (call it S+) and goes into more details on regulatory concerns that S left out or on which it is moot.  Besides the added confusion of enforcing the details of the then three sources of regulations (state, S, S+), this approach promises to be another full employment act for lawyers.  Disgruntled and/or cited growers can now sue the county for drafting the S+ ordinance in violation and contradiction of the people’s intent expressed in the more ambiguous or moot Measure S.  You no doubt see where all this will lead.

8. If there is any real evidence of problems with MMJ availability for prescribed patients, I had neither seen it nor heard about it.  There was no mention of such a shortage last Tuesday at the Rood Center, and I specifically brought it up to the pro-S contingent present.  Be that as it may, there certainly is enough of the stuff grown locally to keep at least all of our MMJ users going 24/7.  So if access is the problem, ASA (it’s in their name) could eliminate that concern by starting a MMJ hotline that ‘patients’ can call and get the information where locally grown MMJ is most readily and affordably available.  Or maybe churches could band together – after all it’s to alleviate human suffering - and man a MMJ distribution center wherein users are properly vetted and registered so that things can go very smoothly when they come again to pick up their, say, monthly stash.

Having said all that, I want to remind readers that I do support legalizing the growing and use of RMJ as a regulated (and taxed) adult consumable similar to how we have established the means to produce, distribute, and consume other recreational drugs such as the various tobacco and ethanol (booze) products.  This is not the place to present all the studies done on MJ, especially the effects of regular and/or early use of RMJ.  Like ethanol, RMJ does make you dopey; you don’t have to be a consumer to verify that.  And like smoking tobacco, smoking RMJ is noxious to many bystanders.  But again, we have laws and ordinances that can deal as effectively with RMJ as they deal with society’s other legal recreational drugs.

Before California makes RMJ consumption legal, we should continue to learn from the Colorado and Washington RMJ experiences.  I believe it is just a matter of time until RMJ becomes legal, no matter the opposition from the LE and criminal cartel industries, because we will literally run out of money if we continue playing cops and riefers.

So there you have it.  I oppose Measure S because it looks, feels, and smells like a cumbersome legal bamboozle to promote an increased local supply of marijuana that can be grown with minimum impediments under the auspices of MMJ, while in reality expanding the sources (and illegal distribution) of RMJ.  After all, we are told that Nevada County is a renowned national supplier of the best marijuana on the market, a market which appears to be insatiable as long as RMJ is illegal.  We should try something else to control and regulate RMJ.  Right now 2349 works for MMJ, and it can be further and readily amended to find the ‘goldilocks boundary’ that balances the county’s legitimate MMJ, neighborhood nuisance, and community health/safety needs.

Comments

[A. Patriot]

Don, I've read Mrs Rebane's flawed, if not biased, analysis in depth. Specific flaws can be found in 1. Who crafted the ordinance - I know the facts is that most patient and caregiver input was ignored. I attended or read reports and minutes of many of the meetings and forums held at that time. We all know Sheriff Royal was the true "editor / crafter" of the current ordinance, and he "adapted" it from another County, and you helped! Trouble is you're both consistently misinformed or uninformed especially on the issues that face patients and caregivers. A form of our unworkable ordinance was making the rounds across California and it is/was straight out of the Sheriff's Association's anti-pot toolbox. Mr. Royal and friends simply added their inimitable touch. 2. Any statement that cultivation is allowed in ANY area without limitation in Measure S is patently false (in fact areas such as Airports business parks etc. are limited by both State law and local commerce codes and other business law and probably plenty of other rules and regs.). 3. Other / Implied Purposes are, at best, Mrs. Rebane's conjecture and opinion and have no basis in fact. At least some her hard numerical comparisons are valid.

I'm also fully aware that dispensaries are banned throughout the County. I firmly believe that is another mistake by our Board of Supervisors based on prejudiced and unsubstantiated information rather than valid data. The black / gray market continues to thrive in part as a result of that error in judgement. Measure S allows the County to address and correct this issue in the future, leaving the people with the option of perhaps allowing this type of safe access in appropriate, non-residential areas.

The County had everything to do with Measure S being crafted. The County has had almost 2 years to address and adjust the shortcomings and ambiguities of 2349. They have not. Measure S is simply a result of their failure to act and their failure to consider the expert input of patients, caregivers and legal medicinal cultivators. Those same experts crafted the modifications and adjustments to create the reasonable compromise that the Supes could have and should have implemented from the start.

[Walt]

Seems the "S" gang is pissed that the meat and potatoes of "S" is spelled out in black and white.
"The current ballot title, which the petition calls “false and misleading,” reads as follows:

“Shall medical marijuana cultivation in Nevada County be allowed to expand by amending the county’s general code to (a) increase the allowed sizes of cultivation areas; (b) reduce or eliminate setback requirements between cultivation areas and adjacent residences and sensitive uses; and (c) eliminate various marijuana cultivation regulations and restrictions related to nuisance control? YES___NO____”

They want it dumbed down to
“Shall the ordinance repealing county ordinance 2349 and enacting medical marijuana cultivation standards be adopted? YES_____NO______”

So those that don't read it in it's entirety will fall for it.

So DO tell.. Just what is false and misleading?

[A. Patriot]

The ballot title is currently written in Black, there is no white. It is not supposed to be written in Black or White. It is REQUIRED to be neutral. One provides a biased opinion, so those who don't read it will fall or it. The other makes no misleading statements, it simply encourages the voter to read it and educate themselves on what the Measure actually says and asks if it should be adopted. So, please, do tell.

[Walt]

So the TRUTH isn't good enough? That's why LIBS are regarded as slimy.
You pray on the stupid vote.

[Walt]

Maybe plenty will read the real facts as printed in the Union, since that's where My above post came from. If a common ditch digger could find this blatant attempt to gain the idiot vote, others will too. Basically the Stoners outsmarted themselves, and showed their cards.
The word is out and so is the real story.
The Union actually helped this time.
Face it. Your greed and arrogance got the better of you. Kiss "S" goodbye.
As stated before "S" stands for sucker. This time the "pro" side is the "lolly".

[A. Patriot]

Sorry to inform you, The "S Gang" is more than just LIBS, its your neighbors and friends, employers and employees, Libs, Cons, Dems, Repubs, TP, GP IP, LE, pastors, preachers, rabbis, gay, straight, tree-huggers, loggers, miners, organic farmers, young adults with seizures and grandparents with aches and pains, butchers, bakers, even candlestick makers. People that know the importance of the Constitution, Property Rights and Honesty, Truth and Justice as well as those that do not. Some may not have an interest, some may be dumber than others, but they are all Americans. They all deserve an impartial stance from those we entrust with public office. This is America.

[Don Bessee]

NID is trying to lay low on this issue for some reason but the fact is they are mitigating issues like pumps drawing from flumes and other documented diversions. Must be the directors laying low. I think a formal document request is in order to show how bad it is here based on what NID already knows. There are water districts in CA that are already doing evaluations based on 50 gal. / person for indoor use and preparing letters based on census data. Even if we are able to keep meters off land owners here do we think that the $500 fine will stop the pot profiteers? The Feds report that the national average is 70-100 gals per person exclusive of outside uses. Now its really about our way of life. I would remind folks that the feds substance abuse and mental health folks show that $1 dollar of prevention saves apx. $3 of society costs of addiction. The pot part is growing and growing. That does not even evaluate the community costs like here where we have families who think free school lunch and health care, Obama phones and all other low income services are cool to suck off when they have massive off the book money. Your tax dollars, County, State and Federal. At the first County workshop on 2349 we had a proposal to really save Deputy man hours, register. Register your recommendation and grow location, send a cell pic or email. Neighbor calls the Sheriff and they can say its ok. Oh no! we are too afraid of disclosure. When was the last time the Feds raided a 20 plant grow if you were not part of a home grown pot gang rolling too much money that could not be accounted for?

[Walt]

Nice rant. It sure isn't employers. Ever hear of drug testing? "S" does "jack" to change that. There are laws like " safe work place". Smoke dope, NO job. Even in states like Colorado and Oregon, those laws are still in force.
"S" is for medical use ONLY, and is a ruse. Nice try. Rec. use is still illegal, and "S" is pushed by the profiteers. There are NO "patients" going without in this county.

I can see your pissed. The truth is all over the front page of the local paper. Gotta love free access of public records.

Gotta hate it when that happens.
I'm a firm believer in full disclosure of any ballot measure. Well, it's "fully disclosed" NOW!!

[Paul Emery]

George
"about as close as I can get to it"

Really George, you know very sell what I'm talking about and you are avoiding the question by saying the problem is so dire that extraordinary measures need to be taken.

If the grows are illegal under State law they should be dealt with by the criminal division of the Sheriffs department. Using the "ordinance" to randomly search properties under the veil of code enforcement is not consistent with integrity or honesty and is an abuse or property rights and police power . I'm very disappointed in your position on this. Makes me suspect of other "principals" you claim. Are "principals" really that contextual?

[A. Patriot]

Sorry Walt, no time for the spin you're trying to sell. Take a look at the sales of Pharmaceuticals and the stats on their use in the workplace. There are plenty of employers that have no problem with legit medical patient's choices. There are plenty that don't. Those practices need careful examination and adaptation as well in light of new research and information. I'm not pissed, I'm amused and incredulous at some of the statements and tirades here. I'm thoroughly disappointed with our BOS, Sheriff and those that would ignore the taxpaying citizens that pay their salaries. That is pretty obvious.

[Walt]

And just what your point? "S" dose nothing to change that. Your trying to pull the same crap as Paul. Divert the subject.
With initiatives, there is nothing wrong with FULL disclosure. " This is what this ballot measure will do, or not do.". Not the usual bait and switch, which is the norm these days.

If employers choose not to drug test, that's up to them and their insurance companies.
There are plenty of employers that would love to hire me because of my abilities and experience, but because I do take prescribed meds they don't like, they can't.
And not because I can't do the job.

[Walt]

BTW,, there are a few right here I have done work for, and have been repeat customers.

[A. Patriot]

Don, why in God's name would/should anyone, legit patient or not, self-incriminate themselves of a Felony in the eyes of the Federal Government? No sane person would take that risk. Did you come up with this and the part of 2349 that requires self-incrimination by landlords that want to rent their property to MMJ patients, as is their right? Also, if we figure 6 gallons per day, per 6 plants, that's 36 gallons a day per patient. How much water does it take for the 18th fairway at the Club? How much for tomatoes? We don't need NID figures for the six plants per patient allowed under Measure S, we already have them. The NID figures might give us some intel on illegal diversions, but wouldn't really help in determining if MMJ or RMJ cultivators or the guy I saw in Alta Sierra pumping water from Rattlesnake Creek onto his lawn were responsible.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 819pm - Remember we have only one of two choices - keep the amendable 2349 or toss it and substitute the unamendable S. Until you finally tell us all how S would solve your property rights assertions, this thread is over.

[Walt]

George.. We have been trying to pry that answer out since the beginning to no eval.
He has no answer. And the others don't give a crap about property rights. If they want to rent to MMJ people there is nothing stopping them today. My guess is that THEY want to be able to rent without disclosing to the landlord, and "S" gives them that out.
"S" will not get anyone around the CC&R's of the likes of LWW or LOP.
The case has been made that the sheriff can make contact with anyone growing weed. It's up to that person to show he/she is within the county ordnance. Pure and simple.
Just like if someone makes a call about someone shooting in their own back yard.

[Paul Emery]

George

S would leave the options for enforcement on the table as it is undefined. Pretty simple answer to your question.
Would you and other property rights advocates be willing to lead the charge for a different enforcement system to the current ordinance?

Walt if someone has 5 acres of property and the grow is in the middle of the property and not visible from property boundaries how would neighbors know about it? Give4 me some examples.

[A. Patriot]

Is it not true that Measure S may be amended and / or repealed (from Ms. Rebane's table) by another ballot action in a new election? In other words, by the voters? We the people, instead of an out of touch group of 5 with political clout, subject to special interest influence? Sounds pretty American to me. To say it is unamendable seem disingenuous. In fact, I maintain that S leaves certain issues undefined for the express purpose of allowing the County to make decisions in related areas not discussed specifically in Measure S.

[Walt]

The sheriff has pot hunter overflights Paul,, that's nothing new.
Think they can see recommendations posted from the air?
And if the grow is of any size, odor travels. Funny I sit on close to 5 acres. it's not that much. Even in the center that's less than 500 yards in any given direction.
Your average football field is one acre. I can smell the grow that's across the county road, and there is two other houses between me and the road, and they don't grow.
That crap stinks. There is no hiding it. Now. How the hell do I know if it's a legal grow?
Riddle me that,, "dope"man....

[George Rebane]

PaulE 939pm - You've finally confirmed my point that both S and 2349 have the same ambiguity for enforcement, and the property rights thing was a red herring in this discussion when it comes to a choice between S and 2349. I will deal with the property rights viz code inspection in a separate post.

APatriot 954pm - have no idea where you are coming from. But reading your comments, it appears that your reasoning is pretty ragged. You also haven't read this comment stream, so you believe you are raising new points when you keep circling the barn. Yes, that's one of the established weaknesses of S is that it cannot be changed ('amended' is not the right word) without holding another expensive election. And the county coming up with S+ codes has been amply covered here as a weakness of S.

And on governance you're a bit rusty on the blessings of the democratic republic that our Founders left us. The last thing you want is for a semi-literate, disinterested, and/or uninformed electorate voting on specific laws. That engenders pure democracy which for nation-states has been the kiss of death. We elect representatives to make laws for us. California is Exhibit A for the ills of having sound-bite driven voters making laws to which the chickenshit politicians would not risk attaching their names.

And the last thing I'd call this BoS is "out of touch". We might not agree with all their actions, but this is one of the most informed BoSs that the county has had.

Signing off, it's my bed time.

[Walt]

Just for A.P.'s info, and just in case he missed my prior posts, I rented to a person who had an MMJ "script. They turned my property into a grow house. Not the two plants the "promised". The damage was so severe I had to sell the damned place. And you want to subject others to that potential problem? If someone doesn't want to rent to someone who grows, that's his right. Dope growers are not a protected class, free of being discriminated. Just like "No pets allowed".
You want to rent to a grower? have at it. No one is stopping you. Hope you can afford the aftermath.

[Bill Tozer]

NID won't stay quiet forever:
http://www.naturalnews.com/047061_water_rationing_California_drought.html

[Walt]

Bill.. Remember what I said about the Bundy standoff in regards to these new water cops?
Ranchers and "real" private property supporters will have none of this. The state has gone too far.... Again. The armed standoffs are coming.

[A. Patriot]

For Walt's info, I'm a landlord, have been for decades. I've had responsible tenants and I've made mistakes that have cost me big. I've learned to write strong leases, do good background checks, trust in my gut and know that its part of the business. I'd have no problem renting to a legit patient/grower that passed my rigorous standards. Sorry you got a bad one, I don't deny there are plenty out there. I'll address more of Mr. Rebane's points above when I'm fresh. I will say that I agree, S does have its weaknesses, and I'll take its weaknesses and look for improvement, as S as a vast improvement over the current ordinance. Goodnight all.

[A. Patriot]

A quick apology and good morning to Dr. Rebane. Forgive me for not addressing you as Dr. - George, (if I may) it is amazing how closely your background and my Dad's match (PhD. Nuclear Physics). DoD., it would not surprise me at all if you know him. I also worked (with him) on the Imagination Pavilion prior to EPCOT's opening. It's a small, small, curious world.

[Walt]

Wait a minute.. I have heard this line before! Same guy,, just a different fictitious name!
Man O man.. I'm feeling generous and won't rat you out. I will let the others figure this one out. DAMN!!! it's tempting. ( damned near word for word.)

[A. Patriot]

Walt, maybe on the old Union comment free for all. My views are pretty consistent, but I try to keep an open mind.

[George Rebane]

APatriot 1114pm – My company delivered 83 ASCIT™ (interactive multimedia videodisc) systems to Disney’s EPCOT. These were emplaced in the park’s CommuniCore facility – the big building on your right as you entered EPCOT’s main gate. EPCOT’s objective was to showcase the future of interactive communication and urban transport (people movers). The ASCIT dialogs (interactive multimedia programs) Disney featured ranged from educational through travelogues to promotional. ATT had the contract for the park’s information kiosks (much simpler touch screen systems) located throughout.

And thank you for the kind words on the honorific. When we moved into these foothills, I somehow lost my PhD and became Mr again. It seems that most folks around here only know to call someone Dr if they are a physician, dentist, chiropractor, or veterinarian. As your dad will tell you, we PhD’s get a little snooty looking at today’s proliferation of the ‘Dr’ honorific for all kinds of degrees and certifications. A couple of other PhD friends up here have suffered the same ignominy, so I really don’t feel singled out ;-)

PhDs (ScDs) are still awarded only to those who have expanded the domain of human knowledge, which expansion has been recognized by their peers. Just mastering an existing body of knowledge was never sufficient to earn an academic PhD. Before about 1800 only people who did successfully ‘philosophize’ – extend knowledge – received that vaunted and always used appellation of Doctor, which then did not always require matriculation from a university – e.g. Dr Ben Franklin. But then around 1800 a select group of physicians (formerly grouped with barbers) began serious study and contributions to biology and physiology, they too, with some considerable justification, demanded to be called Dr. And then things got out of control. By the 1830s anyone with formal medical training or just claiming it anointed himself with Dr, and the rest is history. Someday I should do a piece on the current role and spotty practice of maintaining honorifics in our society. Please pass my greetings to your dad.

[Walt]

Don't feel TOO bad Doc. ,, My "PHD",, dosn't get much attention either.
Mine only seems useful up here in the sticks." Dr. Dirt " will never be found in the phone book. But some good news,,, EMPLOYMENT!!

[Walt]

Up here Doc. PHD stands for Post, Hole, Digger.

[George Rebane]

Walt 1059am - A worthy and useful profession indeed.

[Paul Emery]

No George

There is no ambiguity with 2349. Have you read it? It's quite specific. Code searches on demand without a search warrant. Glad you're going to address that in the near future.

Walt, the sheriff said in the hearings for 2349 that it would be "complaint" driven. What does that have to do with air photo's?

[Walt]

Simple, Paul It's not hard to count pot plants from the air.
It's obvious you haven't took my suggestion to use google earth and take a look for yourself, just to see how many grows in any given part of the county, or any other part of the state for that matter. They stick out like a sore butthole.
It's not just the county. The state, and FEDS have the same over flights. Nevada Co. is NOT a sovereign state our country. That't why growing within the local jurisdiction guidelines is important.
It that just TOO much for you to understand? The ILLEGAL grows outnumber the legal ones
That point never sinks into that head of yours.

Look on the bright side Paul If "S" passes, even MORE complaints and busts will happen.
The Sheriff and his boys will be as busy as a three balled Billy goat. OR a mosquito at a nudest colony... " Where do I start?"
So good job in inviting even more knocks on the door. The profiteers will go to jail just the same.

[Walt]

Well now.. Just what was I saying last night about the effects of pot grows?
Well looky what shows up today..
http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_26634339/biologists-identify-pot-gardens-salmon-threat

So.. We have a problem here. Our own "fish people" ( Yuba and Bear river guardians)
will have something to say in this matter.

[Bill Tozer]

Good thoughts there Dr. Dirt. Is that post hole digger or posthole digger?
Come on, somebody pleazzzzze throw Mr. Paul a bone. His OCD is out of control and it is becoming quite unladylike. Paul is playing that broken record over and over again and is doing the monkey trying to hump a football again and again and again. Somebody have mercy on his tortured soul.

ok Mr. Paul, neither ordinance addresses nor gives a solution to the grievous concerns you raise. So, what do you want to hear? How about "Bad sheriff, bad!" or "down boy down!" Or take a page out of Brother Ben's playground script and cry "it's not fair." I liked it better when you just cried "Bush did it too!" and that seemed to make it all better. Don't know what else to say since the topic of S or the current ordinance ain't satisfying ya. You won't find the answer here as long as pound your spoon and act like the fat bully over on the unmentionable blog. Go Paul Go! Seek and ye shall find.

[Paul Emery]

Walt

Profiters go to jail........

Who pays for that Walt?

[Walt]

Cry me a river Paul, How bout those seized assets? Tax evasion can be a real bitch.
Anything they can assume was paid for with ill gotten gains is sold at auction.
Don't worry,, the perps. don't stay in jail long. They never do. Even the busted one is out on bail.
Heck.. There is already a revolving door on all the jails. We can't keep the bad guys in as it is.

[Paul Emery]

So Walt your solution is to put them all in jail and seize all their property.

[Walt]

So you condone breaking the law and tax evasion?
But LIBS like you love taxes...

[Walt]

The same thing happens to some guy caught dredging Paul, his equipment is seized, and goes to jail, and fined.. Heavily. All on bogus crimes against the "environment".

[Paul Emery]

Walt

So dredgers are actually in jail Walt. News to me. Are they in County, State or Federal institutions ?

[Brad C.]

Colorado and Washington could realize some decent revenue from Mj sales

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/26/marijuana-could-deliver-more-than-800-million-in-revenue-to-washington-and-colorado/

[Walt]

They have been Paul, You just never read about it. It's not big news.
Now you can comment on MJ grows and endangered Salmon. It must be true, since it comes from NOAA. How many times have you referenced them?

So you condone breaking the law, and tax evasion? Spill it.

[Paul Emery]

I support growers that are within the guidlines of California State Law

[Walt]

That's the best you got? You can do a lot better than that. You sure have been sticking up for ANY grower. EVEN the illegal ones. Read your own posts! You can't have it both ways.
Dementia HAS set in....
Now what about those fish?

[Bill Tozer]

And what does this ink blot look like? It looks like Bush now does it not? Here, what does this other ink blot look like? Why, it looks like Bush's face on a marijuana leaf. And what does this small ink blot look like? Why, it looks like a legal grow.

[Walt]

LOL Bill,, Paul just threw "the busted one" under the bus. Let's see if bus driver Paul backs up to finish the job.

[Bill Tozer]

Yep, he painted himself in a corner on that one. Supports growers within the legal guidelines of State law, yet is sympathetic to old unemployable ar-tists with 30 plants and only one script.

How much does that cost us Paul queries? I reckon about the same taxpayer costs as throwing methheads, wife beaters, court date no shows, vandals, liars, cheats, thieves and those that stomp on peoples' feet in the pokey, the clink, the lock up, the slammer, the Big House. All costs about the same to get them out of my line of vision. Oops, I forgot them peaceful down and out drunks intoxicated in public, homeless arsonists, fc Peeping Toms, opossum abusers, and those that get their kicks doing malicious mischief.. The people business is a dirty business I tell ya.

Heck, a person on welfare in the Great State of Californkeeia makes $30,130.00 per year tax free while the poverty level is 25k before taxes. Probably more than most DJs make. Who pays for that and how much goes that cost the taxpayer? Now, what does this ink blot look life. That's right, it looks like a jailhouse with a big marihuana leaf in the background.

[Walt]

thanks Paul, It took me a while, but I got you to scuttle your own ship.
The info. supplied about pot grows and endangered salmon? Your cricket fest on that is deafening.
Why so quiet all of a sudden? An Irishman got your tongue? ( and fingers?)
The pro pot side scram to the cartel infested hills?
Yes, it sure sucks when facts come into the picture.

[Paul Emery]

Walt

Can you provide me with a link showing dredgers have had their property (land) taken and are in jail. You're right I haven't read about that. Thanks for the help.

By the way what is NOAA? I've never used that anachronism.

[Walt]

Not doing your homework for you this time. You provide jack sh** on anything.
I posted the link above on NOAA.. use it. ( Sure you have, in your AGW rants.)

[Walt]

BTW, tune in CH.13 news. A nice story on weed is on soon. if you miss it, check their web site tomorrow.

[Dave Smith]

Walt, here's some information for you as California Health & Safety codes 11362.765 and 11362.775 allows for medical cultivators to be reimbursed for time and expenses in the cultivation of Marijuana for other patients. It also provides a defense to criminal charge of sale of marijuana to make reimbursement possible.....

I know that this shoots a big-old-hole in your consistent mantra about being reimbursed and having people get paid for their time and material, but I will try to buy you an extra box of Kleenex so we don't have to listen to your consistent crying again....

[Paul Emery]

Walt

Are you referring to the Denver Post link? That's a long way from home. I've goggled dredging jail and no results. I sure wish you'd help me with this.

[Walt]

Not even going to waste my time on you Don, That's FAR from specifics.
I'm pretty sure Paul you didn't even read it.
But the Sac. news station DID report on that report. Just because the D.P. is the only
link I stumbled over since it was buried deep in other news, doesn't make it any less
informational.
Funny how a report from ECO Left central gets marginalized by our own Mr. "ECO Left" when it spits in the face of the current agenda. " OH NO.. We will have none of that! How dare they show pot plantations mess with endangered fish!" From water theft to stream pollution.
But gold dredgers got chased from the rivers and creeks to "save the fish".
But now when it's pot grows that endanger the fish, things are different.

[Paul Emery]

I'm assume by your lack of documentation that there were no dredgers who went to jail and lost their property (real estate).
I also assume you made it up. Pretty pathetic Walt.

[George Rebane]

A couple of procedural issues here -

Mr Steve O'Herilihy posts a long pro-S comment by advocate Martin Webb under Jo Ann Rebane's Measure S analysis piece that was published in The Union, the NCRWF Nugget, and on RR. It can be accessed here -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/09/medical-marijuana-cultivation-initiative-nevada-county-ballot-measure-s.html?cid=6a00e54f86f2ad883301b7c6eb16bf970b#comment-6a00e54f86f2ad883301b7c6eb16bf970b

That piece has comment stream numbering more than 250 and will close today (comment streams automatically close after one month; readers can then use the current sandbox to append comments with a permalink to the piece). Regular readers know that the S debate has continued under two subsequent pieces I have posted on the measure, this being one of them. (BTW, I was told that Mr O'Herilihy also started/spread the patently false rumor that Ms Rebane sent an anti-S group email to members of the ASPOA. The politics on growing MJ in the county remain brutal.)

Also, Mr Patriot in his 656pm has charged that the comparative analysis by Ms Rebane was "flawed" without giving any proof of such flaws. It would be productive if he pointed out and corrected the alleged flaws so we would all benefit. No one else, including the county counsel, has made such charges.

Given that, upon study of the relative merits of S viz 2349, Ms Rebane and many others (including me) concluded that S would not benefit the county over the existing 2349, one can claim that the commentary accompanying the analysis is "biased". However, there is no evidence that the relative comparison presenting the facts of the matter was in any way flawed. Perhaps Mr Patriot was caught in the heat of the moment when making that gratuitous charge.

[Walt]

Nope, you should know full well I never make things up. Ever.
Your one to talk about "documentation". As stated before, you never submit ANY.
Now how bout those fish? There is plenty of "documentation" right there.

I do believe Sierra Fund should make their feeling known, and where they stand on this news.

(now for a little more chain rattling for Paul) "private property" has NO bearing on dredging in a waterway. Thank You Ca. Waterboard and the EPA. Forget the rules and claims of regulatory power? Even a private pond is now under government oversite. ( look it up)
They are still working on the mud puddle in your front yard! ( vernal pool)

It sure must bite that the vary regs. your ECO pals have written now apply to your "golden" grows. ( It just ain't RIGHT!) Sure sucks when that happens.

Now how bout those fish?

[A. Patriot]

Dr. Rebane, I suggest you re-read my post where I cited 3 specific instances of flaws in your wife's analysis. The flaws are evident by simply reading the actual text of Measure S. I invite you to show where it allows Medical Cannabis to be grown without limits in any zone, and I refer you to Martin Webb's eyewitness report on the development of the current ordinance. Lastly, the "implied" purposes are obviously opinion. I would further invite you to provide proof these these implied purposes are indeed facts.

[Paul Emery]

Thanks Walt for verifying my claim that there is no truth to your jailing of dredgers allegation.

[Walt]

Let's hear again the "fact" that "patients" are not getting their "medication" under the current regs.,, and " MORE just has to be grown!!"
Granny in S.F. can already get it there, and in Berkeley for FREE! Nevada Co. dosn't need to supply the Bay. They have plenty from other sources.

So DO tell us again "S" is all about the sick. ( my ass)

[Walt]

Paul, This what you get when caught dredging... ANYWHERE. a $1,000 fine and if you have tickets it can ramp up to $10,000 and up to 6 months in jail too.
You think they let you keep the tools of the crime? FAT CHANCE.

[George Rebane]

APatriot 1022am – My apologies for not recognizing the three points in you 656pm as being specific descriptions of the claimed “flaws”. Apparently I responded on at least two of these points to someone else, and now can’t find the copy. So, hopefully the following will serve.

Your #1: The “crafting” or wordsmithing 2349 is a moot point. It is an ordinance requested and passed by the Board of Supervisors, our county’s legislative body, and therefore every word in the ordinance is theirs and their responsibility. To nitpick who actually cobbled the thing together as a debating point here is both superfluous and ingenuous in the sense that it distracts from the decision the voters face in November. When a bill/law is passed, the legislature takes credit and responsibility for it. And when a bill is introduced by a legislator (say, senator, assemblyman, …), the bill and ALL of its wording is ascribed to him and not to the staffers, lobbyists, policy institutes who all may have contributed to it. Therefore ‘Who wrote it’ statement in JA Rebane’s spreadsheet is completely accurate – we hold our supervisors responsible for writing, understanding, and passing 2349. Continuing to argue that 2349 is not a purposive BoS ordinance but something foisted on them and the county is blowing smoke, pure and simple.

Your #2: Regarding permitted cultivation areas; if a law or ordinance is silent or moot on the specifics, then it does not forbid or proscribe cultivation in the unmentioned areas. Ordinance 2349 is specific where cultivation is allowed and where it is not. Outside the cited zonings Measure S is silent and contains no prohibitions about permitting grows as indicated in the spreadsheet. Citing default prohibitions by other laws and codes is again disingenuous since the same provisions also limit 2349. But the simple fact is that 2349 is indeed more restrictive than S in where MMJ can be grown, and that is a simple and easily verifiable fact.

Your #3: The ‘Other/Implied Purposes’ attribute of 2349 and S come from public statements by county officials and the wording in the documents themselves. The county has stated that 2349’s purpose is to “Respond to citizen complaints regarding noxious odor and safety issues.”, and the county’s attempt “to stop NC from becoming the next Mendocino County (of the green MJ triangle).” But it is indeed a (valid IMHO) and in that sense biased interpretation that the implied purpose of S is to “weaken/remove current code restrictions; increase size and zones for grows; favor patient/grower over community/neighbors”, and “perhaps serve as test case for loosening regs in other counties.” Recall that JA Rebane’s article was an advocacy piece for ‘No on S’, and outside the factual comparisons pretended to be nothing else.

I hope this helps.

[A. Patriot]

It helps not a whit. I certainly don't feel discussion of who wrote it is superfluous, particularly in light of current litigation. To say S contains, and I quote, "No prohibitions" is accurate. To say "Cultivation is allowed with no prohibitions" is patently false. It does not say "is allowed". Argue semantics all you want. This statement is purposely misleading. Taking responsibility and credit of the final version is very different from "Who wrote it", which is a long and arduous process, and one in which the Supervisors had very little direct involvement, further the lack of input from patients and cultivators has been alleged many times. I'd suggest that it is the very reason why 11,000 or so voters directed to county to place Measure S on the ballot. Thank you for admitting that the analysis is indeed biased and "an advocacy piece for "No on S" contingent and that the opinions are just that and not fact. As I said before, flawed and biased.

[Paul Emery]

As a result of todays hearing there will be a full hearing on the issue Friday at the Courthouse in Nevada City. The County has agreed to do no mailing or distribution until after the ruling.

[George Rebane]

APatriot 1206pm - Well then, there may be no help forthcoming. But I maintain that you and yours (pro-S) are famously and perhaps successfully attempting to divert attention from the real and only decision voters have on 4 November - either to 1)have S replace 2349 as the legal basis for growing MMJ, or 2) reject S and maintain 2349 as such a legal basis. It matters not whether the actual words were copied, filched, or written by a Martian. They are what they are and they were blessed and passed by our elected BoS. So let's get on to the merits of the alternatives faced by the voters (or continue blowing irrelevant smoke).

And that 11K voters are dissatisfied with it is not because of who wordsmithed 2349, but because they don't like the resulting words (at least give them enough credit for that). The same words could have been written by Moses, and they still would have signed the petition.

If not giving the wordsmithing personages and histories of 2349 and S in the spreadsheet cells, and simply ascribing them as "NC BoS with citizen & patient input" (according to the county), and "ASA - NC. ASA is national activist group working to ensure safe & legal access to medical marijuana." is in your judgment a "flaw", then so be it. But I fear that your assessment of that - and also what 'added meanings' you apply to my 1123am - to be fairly unique, perhaps also revealing the way you think and reason. Nevertheless, your arguments do contribute to the debate and are much appreciated.

[Walt]

Gotta love "if I don't like it, it's flawed.. It says what I say it does. "
Yet no "facts" by A.P.,, just "opinion".

[A. Patriot]

Then there we are. I will say that I will not presume to speculate on the motives of the 11K signatories to the Ballot Petition. It may be that they didn't like the words, it may be that Don Bessee and/or Sheriff Royal just "rubbed them the wrong way" during the the "input process" of 2349, but I'd say it certainly indicates that at least a few of our citizens did not feel their input was considered.

Since Measure S used the current ordinance as it's main input, and, in fact, is primarily intended to address its shortcomings, I'd also argue that for all practical purposes, County BoS, Sheriff Royal, Don Bessee, Patti Smith, patients and cultivators ALL had input into the crafting of Measure S, along with ASA, ASA-NC and interested citizens at large.

I seriously doubt that my assessments are unique. Others here are free to confirm or deny this. Perhaps the way I think and reason is unique. I take that as a compliment. Thank you for the acknowledgement of what I hope are also seen by others as genuine contributions.

[Todd Juvinall]

I recall Measure F wording was manipulated back in I think 1996 by the Elections office. You must make sure the proponents are happy way up front or this a;ways happens.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Can you refresh me about Measure F. Thanks

[Todd Juvinall]

Measure F was an initiative Don Qrnell and I wrote to take 50% of the in lieu money and place it on the roads.

[Paul Emery]

Thanks Todd

I kind of remember that. How did it go? Has there been any other initiatives since then?

[Todd Juvinall]

I don't know if there has been any since.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

I don't there there has been. There was a threat of one over Dark Horse development around 02 but it never happened.

[Bill Tozer]

What I don't like about Prop S is that it changes the rules. To be very specific, no one can grow on a parcel that does not have residence. Fair enough, even if you owned the adjoining parcel. Prop/measure S says now you can grow on an adjacent parcel if it is "inhabited". What the Sam Hill does that mean? That Dorothy and the Tin Man can show up in their magic bus or beat up camper and start cultivating skunk weed? Or maybe let some low life alkie pitch a tent and call it inhabited? Where are they going to take a dump or wash the lice killer out of their hair or keep the youngins sanitary? This raises mega health concerns.
I like having empty adjoining/ adjacent parcels. Keeps it quiet, serves a a buffer zone, and keeps the riff raft far from my driveway. That's why folks buy a couple parcels. No growing on them without a legal residence, even if you own 5 parcels in a row.
Now, some absentee owner in New York can give his brain dead worthless bro-in law and his ax handle ass wide toothless sister permission to grow and camp out on his parcels and have them poop and live there all summer and fall cause it is now inhabited?

Fuk you whoever wrote that clause in there. We have enough fires started in the homeless camps around town. Just imagine the fire danger proposed by campers out in the woods watching the leaves dry while braiding Mama's Cass's armpit hair. Fuk you very much.

[Jon Shilling]

So where can I find a No on S sign? Just for the record, I would put up a No on 2349 if it was available too. Usually it is said that two wrongs don't make a right but in this case I hope two bad ordinances will lead to a good one.