Medical Marijuana, Property Rights, and Government Access

George Rebane

[This is the addended transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 3 October 2014.]

The upcoming vote on Measure S, the medical marijuana initiative, is raising many questions about enforcement as they affect private property rights.  Measure S, if passed, would replace Nevada County’s existing Ordinance 2349 that prescribes how medical marijuana or MMJ may be grown and consumed in the county.   To be clear, proponents of S are made up almost entirely of the county’s Democrat voting, leftwing or progressive contingent, and the anti-S people are primarily conservative and vote Republican.

As the election nears we hear of all kinds of charges and counter charges claiming misrepresentation of this or that provision of S or the existing 2349.  In this brief commentary I’d like to focus on the county’s MMJ enforcement provisions as they affect property rights.  First, we must understand that according to county counsel Alison Barratt-Green, both S and the existing 2349 are subject to identical enforcement provisions.  In other words, enforcement policy and actions by the county will be affected by the outcome of the election only to the extent that their specific provisions prescribing MMJ grows and related nuisance factors differ.

Currently 2349 provides a number of civil protections to the cultivator and county that are not present in Measure S.  These include the service of a legal notice, the right to appeal, and the right to a hearing.  In turn the county is protected in so far as the county’s abatement costs may be recovered from the property owner/tenant if the violation is not brought into compliance by the MMJ cultivator. 

Overall, according to County Counsel, the sheriff is guided by the 4th Amendment, and the further interpretation that to the extent that a violation can be seen from a location of public access – like a street or the sidewalk – then an ordinance inspection officer may enter the property with the same permission as is extended to the US Postal Service, PG&E or the UPS driver.  If thereupon an ordinance violation is confirmed, then the inspection officer/sheriff is not precluded from making a full compliance check.  Depending on the subsequent findings, the inspector will then leave because the medical marijuana grow is ‘in compliance’, or he informs the resident that the grow is ‘not in compliance’, and must be remediated to bring it into compliance.  Such remediation may involve abatement or removing the marijuana plants.  In every such case of non-compliance, the property owner/tenant is issued a Notice to Abate Unlawful Marijuana Cultivation. 

When there is reason to believe that a violation of 2349 is taking place out of plain view, the inspection officer/sheriff must obtain an inspection order or warrant from the Court to permit a more intrusive compliance inspection.  We should also note that nothing in 2349 or S “affects or precludes the Sheriff from taking immediate abatement action without notice (regarding) any marijuana which is cultivated, possessed, or distributed in violation of state law.”

The pro-S advocates claim that after adoption of Measure S the BoS can subsequently sort out and write one or more new ordinances to indicate what recourse will be available for MMJ growers.  But this will import to our county all the MMJ litigation problems the state created with its initiative based law which then had to be spelled out by subsequent case laws resulting from litigation.  This has become another lawyers’ full employment opportunity.  Ordinance 2349 was adopted to provide an easily amendable clarification of the state’s MMJ law for Nevada County.  However, Measure S can only be amended through another initiative that must be accepted by the voters.

In sum, what voters should know is that the property rights issue between 2349 and S is moot – both will be subject to the same enforcement policy by the county inspectors and the Sheriff’s Department.  Some have tried to make this a property rights issue by claiming that there is a contradiction or hypocrisy involved if a voter favors 2349 over S or vice versa.  But the question of whether such government incursions onto private property should be legal or practiced is a completely different matter that can and should be debated in a free society.  Property rights and code enforcement should not be a factor in your choice of supporting or rejecting Measure S.

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on georgerebane.com where the expanded transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where an extended debate continues about growing and consuming medical marijuana in Nevada County.  However my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

[Addendum]  Let’s take a couple of swings at the property rights aspect of growing MMJ.  A definition of property might be a good place to start.

Property is any asset of ascribed value that is owned by some individual, group, institution, or the state.  In a society the legal owner of a property owns it only to the extent that he/it can dispose of the property as he/it wills.  Absolute ownership – dispose of it without restriction – is seldom possible in an established social order.  The notion of absolute ownership is still important as an objective or goal of organizing society according to or under various governance ideologies (e.g. conservative, classical liberal, libertarian).   Often public policies are evaluated as to how close (conservative) or far (collectivist) from absolute ownership they place and maintain certain kinds of properties.

The Bastiat Triangle of Rights (q.v.) and most liberal constitutions (e.g. California’s) cite life, liberty, and property as ‘things’ that the state cannot deprive a legal entity (legal persons, business entities, or individual natural persons) without due process.  That is, structured and defended property ownership is an essential component of a liberal society without which the other two rights to securing one’s person (life) and freedom of action (liberty) cannot be sustained.  Or more specifically, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."  Frederic Basitiat, The Law.

Adam Smith: taught that the expectation of profit from “improving one's stock of capital” rests on private property rights.  Capitalism expanded on this idea holding that property rights motivate its owners to develop their property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of markets wherein prices communicate value.  But Smith also observed, "Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality … Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."  Here we focus on private real property – land and domicile – and specifically how the state can prescribe its disposition and enjoy access to it.

If we define absolute freedom of behavior to consist of all the things a lone human being can do as the solo inhabitant of one of Jupiter’s moons, then it should be clear to those who can think that as soon as two humans come together or even know that they each are within the other’s reach, then their behavior becomes constrained – they no longer have absolute freedom since they insert the other into their considerations.  And even more behaviors are proscribed should two or more people want to work together to accomplish something of mutual benefit.  As more people join to live and work in each other’s company/proximity more and more freedoms of action must be surrendered by everyone concerned.

The same arguments reflect on the ownership of property.  Anything of which one claims ownership, that ownership will be diminished as soon as the thing owned is brought into and used in a society.  In short, you no longer have the freedom to dispose of it as you will (or would have on that Jupiter’s moon).

The upshot of all this that humans have always put a finite and negotiable price on their liberties when dealing with others in order to get something that they value more than the relinquished freedoms.  So we know that absolute freedoms don’t work in a society.  Both conservatives and collectivists know this (however for some pernicious reason their progressive brethren keep blowing the smoke that conservatives would have no limits on their freedoms). Now how do we bookend the other extreme in which every sensible person subjected to such deprivation of freedoms will seek to either revolt or flee?

That limit – let’s call it the ‘slavery limit’ – is the crux of the grand debate between collectivists and classical liberals.  The former believe man will happily live a compliant life with many fewer freedoms than do the latter.  That is one reason why it would be better to live in separate jurisdictions when there is a huge difference between the slavery limits of each – in this case a compromise would satisfy neither, and perennial strife would replace harmony.  (In America we have already entered that epoch.)

To proceed, in society any given level of liberties – e.g. property rights – are to be enjoyed only by those who have agreed to the society’s social contract, which includes living within the law.  Part of any such contract is for individuals to surrender certain freedoms of action to a mutually commissioned constabulary that is supposed to enforce the formal aspects of the social contract equally and with no bias across society’s members.  Such constabularies relate to the people through established protocols which we may view as rules of engagement.  A seminal part of such rules is that they provide more latitude in access, arrest, and use of force the more apparent it is to them that the social contract has been violated.  And again the degrees and limits of such latitudes vary greatly between autocratic and liberal societies.

In this regard a telltale sign of a liberal society is that its constabularies must jump through hoops – satisfy more constraints – as they escalate their prerogatives for enforcing the law.  These niceties are dispensed with in autocracies where the police are free to escalate to deadly force at will or with few prerequisites.  But common to all such social contracts is that such escalation will take place when incoming evidence points a more unwavering finger of guilt at the presumed perpetrator.

So here we have been concerned with the property rights of the MMJ grower.  That some inspector or sheriff’s deputy will come and violate the grower's home and castle without due process and for no cause.  Or on the slim excuse of a neighbor complaining about the smell or even about some unseemly visitors who come and go.  But that raises the point that has been overlooked in this debate.

The complaining neighbors too have property rights.  They bought their house or established their business in a neighborhood that didn’t have a MMJ grow until a renter came or the owner decided for whatever legitimate reason to start raising medical marijuana.  These neighbors then have two concerns about the presence of the new grow – reduction of the quality of life, and a very real possibility that their property values will decline.  After all, who wants to buy into a neighborhood with an obvious MMJ grower in obvious residence.

The situation in these times may even be worse for such neighbors.  When a buyer makes an offer, must they declare the presence of the MMJ grower?  If they don’t, are they and/or their real estate agents liable for a suit from buyers claiming that critical information about the house was purposely withheld – another full employment opportunity for lawyers.  In short, when an MMJ grower establishes himself in a neighborhood, it can raise property rights concerns all around.

And it is this multi-party scenario that any MMJ ordinance and its enforcement policy will have to carefully tread so as to somehow be fair and balanced to all parties concerned.  I don’t think that anyone has really cracked the code yet on what a proper ordinance is, but in Nevada County the sheriff receives around 150 complaints a year.  Sheriff Royal stated that these resulted in around 50 citations and less than ten turned out to require abatement.  For all the MMJ grows in this county, these numbers speak very well of how all parties concerned deal with each other.  On the face of this evidence, I would say that 2349 has served the county well with regard to maintaining that hazy boundary of contending property rights between the growers and their neighbors.

And I’m sure that there is more to be said about this issue, but to date I’m not aware of any gross violation of anyone’s property rights under 2349, and Measure S gives us no confidence that the present livable compromise will be improved under its auspices.

Comments

[Walt]

From the Union at the bottom of the "S" story.
"Earlier Friday, Nevada City attorney Heather Burke, leader of the newly formed Nevada County Merchants Coalition for Measure S, said the case was a symptom of a larger issue regarding the process for creating and enforcing the current county medical marijuana ordinance and the process for creating Measure S.

“We need to figure out how to get everybody on board to talk about what should be done (regarding marijuana cultivation),” she said, standing outside on the county courthouse steps. “Our county deserves a better conversation than what we’ve had so far.”

Burke said her group will be focusing on fiscal and economic impacts of Measure S.

“Small businesses in Nevada County depend on the vibrancy of our local economy for their success,” she said.

“Our purpose is to advocate for the small businesses in our county,” Burke said in a news release earlier this week. “With that sole purpose in mind, we formally support Measure S as a conservative medical cannabis cultivation ordinance that strikes the proper balance between all interested parties in a manner that allows our businesses to continue to thrive.”

Well that has jack squat to do with "medical".
It's about profits.."Underground economy" The non taxed buck.
"M"mj is a ruse and a piss poor excuse.

[Don Bessee]

Pattie Smith has agreed in public with media witnesses to an on air, no audience, no call in, no questions in advance debate. Burke is the lawyer who lost at the last S try to stop enforcement of 2349 before the latest desperation play. There is NO special business group. It has no business listed and shown as being from the citizens for fair law aka pattie smith. There is a real group of businesses that has names you know who care about the community that are running a real legal committee. People who have a history of bi-partisan evaluation of the merits of issues and candidates. Their website is www.GetthefactsonS.com Please review the previous claims back before 2349 was passed and the outrageous claims like now. None of their projections proved true, a loss of $100,000,000.00 to the economy and what happened? Rare Earth who signed their yes on s ballot statement has trebled in size. It PROFITS NOT PATIENTS PEOPLE!

[Walt]

Just maybe those "businesses" are all associated with dope production, and dope smoking accessories?
OK Pro "S" experts, lets have the list of "Nevada County Merchants Coalition for Measure S"
Lets have it.

[Walt]

From the "yes on s" web site..
Tell us again it's not about the money. It's for the "patients".
With this load of bullshit there should be a bumper crop.

We do NOT take a position on the ethics or morals of cannabis use or cultivation.
We do NOT take a position on the medicinal or recreational value of cannabis.
We do advocate for the economic interests of our local business community, which includes an assessment of both the negative and positive impacts of local cannabis cultivation.
Based on the foregoing principles, the Nevada County Merchants' Coalition urges you to vote Yes on Measure S.

[Dave Smith]

Dr. Rebane, it amazes me that you have the dopiest people on your blog site, why is that?

We have a serious voter election fraud issue here, and we get the two howler monkeys trying to justify Judge Dowlings position?

The county has reprinted these ballots before within the same time constraints, and if there is ever a issue about voter fraud, then I would assume with your education, that you could see right through this discrace.....

[Barry Pruett]

Judge Dowling's issue was not the reprinting of the ballots but that military ballots went out and some of which were already received. Federal law requires those ballots to be mailed far earlier than our ballots. An experienced election law person would have known to read the resolution. ASA was about three weeks too late in bringing up the issue. If they had brought it up sooner, they would have prevailed.

[Walt]

Howler monkeys? That's a good one. Better that than a drug pushing tax evader.
So-called "MMJ" is in all our grades schools. But I'm sure they only get it from the illegal grows and cartel dealers... Right?

[George Rebane]

Dave Smith 1105pm - If it were really a case of "voter fraud", I think that Judge Dowling would have seen through that and forced remediation. Given the 628am of Barry Pruett, it is clear to me and also the judge that ASA attempted to game the ballot issue in their favor, and pulled off in a very clumsy and amateurish manner.

And if your howler monkey assessment is correct, then it looks like you may be part of ASA's sour grapes echo chamber. But if you wanted to contribute to the dialogue, please tell us how serious is the county's MMJ access problem - for openers, how many people are legitamately prescribed MMJ patients?

[Barry Pruett]

Just to be clear and as reasonable minds may differ as to this opinion, I do not think that ASA was trying to game the system. If anyone is trying to game the system, it is the drafter of the ballot language. It seems that ASA simply did not look at the ballot language until the eleventh hour...and were too late to complain. Rookie mistake.

[Paul Emery]

George, explain to me again why it is important to know the number of MMJ users in the County? Nevada County growers can legally grow for anyone in the State and be reimbursed financially for their efforts. Like it or no it's the law. that's why cultivation is a legirimate cottage industry that the local economy benefits from.

[Jon Shilling]

Patricia Smith and others have stated that there is a shortage of MMJ locally. What is the harm in knowing approximate numbers of 'patients' , locally? Maybe it would be harmful to the Pro S propaganda? I would think it would be in their interest to give approximate numbers and what they are being treated for. Put a 'face' on who these patients are. Without that most that are on the fence will see this as more of a recreational issue. I would like also for them to break out the % of the economy that the MMJ industry is. I believe it is miniscule in comparison to the illegal portion. So I too would like to see the list of Pro S businesses that are proud to be supported by predominately criminal enterprises.

[Walt]

Good job Paul pointing out that it's "all about the money".
Just why should "our product" be shipped all over the state? Do tell.
I'm sure every county in the state has the same pro doper's crowd and are in it for
the most grow for the buck. We don't have the market cornered in dope. We have nothing on Mendocino.

It IS important to know or have a good idea of just how many legit MMJ users there are.
Anything over that is rec usage. ( that means illegal)
Remember,, even YOU stated your for "legal usage and grows ONLY" So now YOU explain why "we" should ship local DOPE across the county line. There is no legitimate reason. ( just for illegal profiteering)

[Paul Emery]

Walt

Because State law supports caregivers growing for individuals and collectives throughout the State. Please show me otherwise. Read the law.

[Jon Shilling]

'Caregiver' is a convenient term for a grower shipping his/her product all over the state. I have read the law. The proponents of S chose to make this a local issue and this is a local ordinance.

[Al]

Skunk weed, Sativa indica, is a nuisance. While working in Weimar this morning, I looked around for a (rabid, daylight) Skunk, which raised my hackles.

Growers should try to breed a 'sativa' , which
doesn't try ancestral warnings.

[Walt]

Well Paul,, "caregiver" is a job I am WELL familiar with. It sure dosn't apply to someone growing dope here, and shipping is to God knows where.
In this instance the "S" gang revisions/re-brands(something LIBS love to do)the word to include drug supplier/mule. A true "care giver" is there, by the needy persons side, and at the beck and call, at all hours of the day 24/7.
So do tell how a true "care giver" grow dope here, and have the "care-ee ",,, say in S.F.??
The dopers sure have bastardized the definition of "caregiver".
You sure have plenty of excuses Paul, there is no justification for dope grown here to cross the county line to be sold elsewhere. There is plenty grown within the counties that have "dispensaries".
Next excuse?

[Walt]

Well,, the "NO" on "S" signs are going up, and in good numbers. Even a few "on the cheep" (home made) have been spotted.
Just maybe people don't want their rental properties destroyed with a new laws blessing.
"I don't have to tell you I'm screwing with the plumbing and electrical. You can fix the damage when I'm done with what's yours... Sucker,, it's your stupid fault for renting to me. Better luck next time."

[Patricia Smith]

George, I am quite surprised at your leap of logic when it comes to Measure S. I guess you are not aware that we have registered more Republican voters than the Republican party since we started our petition drive. Of course, we have also registered a lot more Democrats and even more decline to state. This is not a red issue or a blue issue, it's a patient issue. We had a Yes on S volunteer at KMart today next to a No on S supporter. In one hour we registered 16 new voters compared to 3 for the Republicant's (not a typo).

Your peanut gallery keeps howling for facts that are not readily available because of the stigma that is still attached to using marijuana for medical purposes. I do not have exact numbers of qualified patients because there isn't a register for this information. But going by the number of patients seen by local doctors, the numbers in NC are in the tens of thousands.

Furthermore, Prop 215 is a statewide initiative that demands that collectives bring their excess medicine to a legal dispensary. This is the very definition of a "closed loop" system that keeps product off the streets and out of the hands of minors. Isn't this what you all say you want? The number one stated answer to a lack of medical grade cannabis is to go to a dispensary.

Do you think folks in the city raise their own cows for meat or milk? it comes from AG areas like ours. Where do you suppose they get product for the dispensaries, from the pot fairy? Like I said, it is perfectly legal to get reimbursed for your time and expenses. Why is that such a hard concept for your readers to grasp?

Even though ASA does not support legalization, it is clear that it is coming to CA, probably as soon as 2016. It will include a distribution and taxation system. In fact, we are the only industry I can think of that is begging to be taxed if it means the end to arrests for cultivating legally.

[Walt]

Lets have some hard numbers on that "just compensation" Ms. Smith, 40 grand a season? 60 grand per "crop"? Indoors the same plant can produce multiple times. ( about every 75 to 90 days) That question gets marginalized every time it's asked.
Growers should have no problem owning the property they grow on from the simple fact of the obscene profits they make. ( I am no stranger to MJ so don't try and insult my intelligence
of this issue) I was one who followed the letter of the existing laws, and never sold ANY.
( just to refresh your memory.) But I know and knew plenty of people who did, and am fully aware of how much they dragged in.
Now lets have some hard numbers.

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 338pm – Not sure to what leaps of logic you are referring. My presumption about how the support of S divides by the political parties is hopefully not one of those leaps.

But you cited some numbers of MMJ patients in NC on KNCO, and here you are corroborating your estimate that ranges into “the tens of thousands”. The county’s population is under 100K. Tens of thousands residents here needing MMJ to maintain their QoL would literally consist of an epidemic. And assuming that they could not get relief by alternative means (which physicians I have consulted tell me that almost all of them can, but be that as it may), then the county with the support of its medical establishment, and perhaps even the state, should modify 2349 and the county zoning map to allow the establishment of commercial MMJ grows in west county whereon thousands of plants would be raised far from populated areas to provide ample and low cost supply to locals and other sufferers statewide. I would support such an initiative should the numbers bear out the need.

But no one knows any facts about MMJ consumption or availability. I have said several times that a good estimate of the number of county MMJ consumers could be had by asking the physicians to report quarterly on how many prescriptions the originated and renewed. I am surprised that ASA has not made certain with actual data the strong case it claims through rumor, innuendo, and anecdotal citations. I would even be willing to posit that each such prescription be attributed to Nevada County residents even if some are written for people not living here. But please, give us the numbers.

RR has long maintained that the significance of ALL social issues and problems arise from the numbers which characterize them. Without such data the discussion, let alone making public policy, will be based on emotion, demagoguery, and even outright lies. In the case of S and “tens of thousands” of legitimate underserved users, it is clear that S will not serve, and that much stronger stuff is needed either in legislation or local codes that support the efficient mass production of the needed weed.

[Al]

Oops, Cannabis indica smells like a Skunk.
Cannabis sativa doesn't stink and is more neighborly.

Growers should develop a medical 'sativa'
for the better good.

[Bill Tozer]

Selling your script is not as lucrative as it was just 4 years ago. One could sell his script to be posted at a grower's farm for 2k, then it dropped to 1k and now it is probably going for 500-600 clams. Yep, just like selling food stamps, the price has been dropping. All these amateurs now growing in every nook and cranny have messed up a good thing.

Heck, you are stupid now if you pay 100 bucks to obtain a script from a doctor. More stupid if you get your Dr.'s recommendation in Nevada County. 49 clams is all it costs in Roseville/Sac and even cheaper further south. Doc gets way more than seeing a Medicaid patient, much more at 29-49 bucks and way less paperwork. Just say your shoulder hurts or you feel stressed and can't sleep. Of course, if you want to shop local, go ahead and pay the 170 clams and feel like you are helping the local economy.

If we have here in this county 10s of thousands of sick people, then there truly is something in the water. A remarkable number considering if you throw out the kids and just count the adults living here. I figure about 40% of the adult folks here must be sick, on crazy money, disabled, of a combination of the three. Life is good.

[Bill Tozer]

Guess some people just want to grow in peace.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4y5si8DGs

[Paul Emery]

George

Besides countering Patricia's rhetoric you haven't convinced me of the importance of knowing local MMJ needs. Do you question the legality of local providers catering to the medical needs of individuals, dispensaries or coops throughout the state?

[Walt]

Put it another way Paul,, you haven't convinced anyone that shipping over the county line
is needed. There is no such thing as an absentee caregiver. Your right back to underhandedly supporting illegal ops. for profit.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1254am - Let's just stipulate that it is legal for NC to become the state's MMJ supplier (although I'm not familiar with the law's intra-state transport provisions). The fact that it is legal for NC to also be the state's provider of beef (feed lots and slaughter houses), paper (paper mills), vehicle recycling (auto crushing), etc does not mean that the people of NC want to have such noxious facilities at the scale to satisfy any such statewide needs. We still get to make our own decisions about the size and number of such businesses we want up here. I know this is a difficult concept for the liberal mind because it requires nuancing - the standard response being 'Well then, that means that you're against free enterprise, etc.' At best it seems that raising such a red herring in this debate means it's desperation time for S supporters - they are running short of reasonable arguments.

And your being unconvinced on requiring information that defines and shapes the scope of a social issue is simply an ongoing confirmation of how the Left and Right view issues and make decisions. For the left having hard data to guide and support decisions on public policy is not only not required, it acts as an impediment to their control manner of governance - it's always 'verdict first, trial later'. In the years of RR I have yet to see a liberal include hard data in their arguments or be convinced by such citations - emotion and feel good principles overrule reasoning every time. This is one of the major attributes of our national polarization that is leading to the country's dissolution (cf. Great Divide). We are fundamentally different peoples.

[Walt]

I divert your attention to this.
http://knco.com/large-marijuana-interstate-business-bust-in-nevada-county/

"Sheriff Royal says according to Proposition 215 the garden is in itself not illegal, but the activity associated with it is."

This is just one of many reports of "legal" grows where greed kicked in.

Care to comment Paul? ,,,or Patty?

[RL Crabb]

It's kinda funny listening to conservatives complain about greed, or thumbing your free market nose at the gov'mint.

[Walt]

Sorry RL,, There is a difference about "honest" greed and making that buck through illegal activity. As for the "G"man, special interest has sure put the hurt on the honest guy, through excessive regulations. Yet the subject at hand ( dope),, these guys want to operate with NO regs what so ever. The honest guy pays taxes and keeps records as the law stipulates.. But not these guys. Inspectors can walk into any legitimate business and give a real good rectal exam at their whim, and even shut them down if they so choose.
What makes the dopers special?

[RL Crabb]

Think of it as an act of rebellion.

[Walt]

Maybe IMM should have rebelled and started digging. How would that have worked out?
Management would have been hauled away in cuffs just the same.
Look at all the bogus laws to stifle "honest greed" in the name of AGW. ( How bout the greed of so called "non profits"? Living high on the hog of other people's money. Yet that seems to be legal.)

[Todd Juvinall]

Walt, maybe an EIR for the skunk plant should be done just like the one's for Loma Rica and IMM? Aw the smell of skunk, I wonder if it causes "global warming"?

[Walt]

That sure would make the howl Todd, Make the same yappers go through what the demand of others.. What a concept. Especially after the report of the impacts of MJ growing and endangered fish habitat. The blinders sure went up on that... Pure crickets.

[Bill Tozer]

Dear Ms. Patricia Smith. You finished your last post with "end to arrests for cultivating legally." You were holding your own until you went of the rails with that concluding sentence. No need to get all hysterical.

I admit I could be living in a vacuum and blissfully unaware of people being hauled off to the slammer to spend the weekend at our plush Wayne C Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada County, CA. Hallways have 3 tone paint jobs and even isolation ain't that bad, but I digress. People being tossed in the pokey for cultivating legally??

Haven't heard much of that news so please, pray tell, inform this ignorant brut. Abatements tickets I have heard about and compliance violations with a process to challenge, but handcuffed and riding in the back seat on a black and white for legal grows? Those with abatement tickets are considered illegal growers with minor infractions. Most I hear is those at legal grows being tossed into the pokey are folks with outstanding warrants, felons in possessions of weapons and fire sticks, methheads, fine young mothers with their toiletry kits packed with syringes and some off white substances. Sure, occasionally someone is handcuffed and booked into the Clink cause they lost their composure and committed misdemeanor assault, especially right before harvest time. Some strains make people downright paranoid I tell ya.

Please cite some cases where cultivating legally and crossing all the T's and dotting all the Is have led to arrests of lawful cultivation. Of course you should not divulge names or exact addresses. That would really be unprofessional.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I have ridden in the back of a comfortable squad car a few times and have ridden in the front passenger's seat a couple of times and believe you me, the front seat is better. It's closer to the AC and all the knobs on the radio.

[Walt]

Bill.. good luck getting a straight answer. What you point out is right up there with what George laid bare. " thousands of mmj scripts" in the Co... Then the claim of "businesses support "S", but refuse to say just who they are.
Seems the BS train is rolling on square wheels.

[Don Bessee]

The rumble is on. Friday, noon on KVMR with Pascale of yubanet as moderator. No call ins, no pre-screened questions, no games. Thank you Pattie for being willing to go old school. The Neighbors Who Care signs ROCK! The contrast with our natural areas is great. IF you want a republican sign grab them soon. Only a few left. Thanks to the Realtors for telling the truth. S is a financial disaster for home owners. The victims rights folks are also quietly with us they have been beaten down before and don't want it again on the web but still stand tall. Tell your neighbors we need them to vote! If they need a ride to the polling place we can get them there.

[Al]

RE: Todd at 10:30 AM,

Is there anything that 'Climate Change' and AKAs can't do?

An old one: If God is omnipotent, can he/she/GLBT roll a joint so strong that he can't smoke it?

[Bob Hobert]

George,

I have sent this blogpost to many of my NevCo friends of all persuasions. Many have replied with a "thank you" for your clarifying remarks. Thank you.

[Steve O'Herilihy]

If this was NH 2020 you would be singing a different tune, George. You are a great writer and very thoughtful but at the end of the day you are as political as your wife.

[Paul Emery]

Re George 7:34

Seems like you are making a case here for government regulations over lawful use of private property. What is the threshold where you feel it is necessary for the government to step in? Certainly it's not in the case of mining as you so carefully expressed concerning the San Juan mine. But legal marijuana grows on private property demanded government action. Pretty funny position George. It leaves the door open for all kinds of government intrusion on private property and is not consistent with other situations such as logging and property development.

[Dave Smith]

That's interesting Don, as why did 82% of the Realtor's membership support Measure S then?

What a buffoon, as I guess that numbers are not your strong point.....

I tend to believe Steve O'Herilihy, as George, it's interesting that someone with your education level can pick a choose the data you want to look as and not see the whole picture (or even care to???).

I know that I would not have received my Doctorate if I thought this way, and I know what area you have your Doctorate in, but the way you're presenting this, maybe you should have gotten yours from the Department of Folklore?

[Walt]

Paul,, did you think that through before you posted? There is PLENTY of gov. regulation pertaining to private property use.

[George Rebane]

DaveS 348am - Well then, by all means present us with your own educational credentials along with the data on the "whole picture". I'm not rejecting any data on the whole picture, only suggesting that we start with the most basic of the relevant data items - the number of the affected/afflicted? MMJ users in NC that S is supposed to relieve. (Had no idea that you were also knowledgeable on the requirements for the award of PhD degrees. We'll weigh that accordingly when considering your further contributions.)

[Paul Emery]

George

Somehow I'm not convinced that the MM users in Nevada County is an important number. Explain again the relevance other than to counter Patricia's argument.

[Bill Tozer]

here we go around the Mulberry bush, ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Go ahead Dr. Rebane, explain it to Paul again and again 'bout having a starting point concerning accurate data and how many sick patients will be helped by Measure S as opposed to the current ordinance. If we go through all this horse pucky to help 6 more sick patients, then this whole confab comes close to an exercise in fruitility. Go ahead Dr. Rebane, 'xplain it to Paul again and this time he might read the black on the page instead of the white.

[Patricia Smith]

George, you floor me. Why on earth would you expect a community non-profit group to have access to information the county doesn't even have? Why aren't you hounding them for the number of patients in NC? Until there is some sort of registry system, all numbers are just guestimates. I am not trying to withhold information, I simply do not have accurate numbers - and unlike some of the people who write on your blog, if I don't know something, i don't throw out unsubstantiated numbers.

That being said, I read today about a study in California co-sponsored by the CDC that claims 5% of the population are using medical marijuana for chronic systems. That comes to 1.6 million patients in the Golden State. If we use the same calculations, we would have approx 20,000 patients in NC, which is pretty much on track for what I suspected but could not verify. Hope that satisfies you (but I doubt it.)

[Paul Emery]

It sounds to me that George would like to have (let me clear my throat) an Environmental Impact Report on the effects of MMJ cultivation in Nevada County. Interesting turnaround on values here.

[Bill Tozer]

Patricia, you don't throw out numbers you don't know? Ok, say there are 100 k people living in the county. 5% would be 5 thousand and that is including every infant, kinder gardener, every middle schooler in the county population. Think the county has a total population of 125K, but let's not quibble.

Patricia, you seem like a sincere nice person who just said "if I don't know something, I don't throw out unsubstantiated numbers." Well. Miss Patty, you are either dumber than a bucket of rocks when it comes to math or have Old Times Disease cause that is not what you said on the radio. Or you are a just another piece of work bold face liar. I prefer to cut you some slack and reject the latter and assume count on fingers basic math does not come naturally to you. I think you are smarter than a fence post, so let's just say you had a momentary lapse in memory....or to use the current politician speakese, say you misspoke. That was easy. Unless you purposely intended to deceive or stretch the truth.

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 118pm - this is embarrassing Pattie, and I hope not typical of your soulmates. 0.05 x 100,000 = 5,000. And please cite your study, even though the 5% number is more in the ballpark with the 2,200 I derived from the Colorado MMJ experience.

PaulE 138pm - You just go on weaving them Paul, and we'll keep on reading them. BTW, the barn on the need for numbers before voting has been circled here for years. I will no longer do that. How about trying something new, why don't you make the case that the significance of all social issues does NOT depend on the numbers that characterize them?

[Gregory]

After a long chat with an old friend who used to be an insider on the "Sensible Solution" side and is now leaning No, I've gone from waffling between not casting a vote and a Yes, to between a No and not casting a vote.

I'm beginning to accept this is less of a "let's make it easier for folks to grow medicine for themselves and their associates" and more of a "let's let local growers grow more pot to sell outside the county so they don't have to try to do something more productive with their lives that might require working a 40+ hour week".

On a related topic, I had a nice chat at the last Nirvana County Fair with a newly local Mom who moved to Nevada County after her research indicated our schools were among the best in the state, only to discover they weren't once here (easy to look way above average if all are English speaking)... and her kid's exposure to the local pot culture is causing her enough family problems as it is.

[Steve O'Herilihy]

If hard numbers are the order of the day, how about the fact that 40 years ago pot sold for abut $5,500 a pound. Today is sells for maybe $1,500 a pound. And, it is well established that inflation has eaten in to the dollar about as much. Combine these two "numbers" and please realize that the dynamics of the "free market" (a conservative mantra) lost the "war on pot" (actually full employment for police and jailers) a long, long time ago.

Please realize that to extent eradication lowers supply, and demand stays stable, then prices will rise. When prices rise it tempts more suppliers into the market.

Yes on S is a message that as conservatives we understand the dynamics of supply and demand and this fundamental law is why the drug war is lost.

What will the drug warriors do in the next 40 years to have better numbers (as reflected in higher cost for pot) than what they have produced so far?

I would like to see Nevada County more in tune with Free Market Principles, limited government...and frankly reality.

Honest to gosh, please put espoused Tea Party principles above political power. Tea Party should be voting Yes on S to send a message that they won't be lap dogs of Republican Federated Women. But, that would require actually walking the walk. They like flirting with dominant forces more than they like walking like they talk.

[Al]

Just talked with the receptionist at the NCBOR, 272-2627.
He indicated that their Board is in opposition to Measure S. So the link below appears to be valid, which might to be news to some.

http://barrypruett.blogspot.com/2014/10/nevada-county-association-of-realtors.html#comment-form

[Patricia Smith]

Did the NCBOR receptionist mention the fact that 82% of their members who participated in the poll SUPPORTED Measure S? I didn't think so! So the Board can just do whatever they want in defiance of the position taken by the large majority of their membership? It's time for a change on so many levels.