If the county board of supervisors goes ahead and passes an ordinance regulating marijuana cultivation on residential property on May 8, as expected, the chances are good that it will go to a public vote anyway.
Perhaps that’s OK, because it will be a chance to gauge community-wide opinion on marijuana cultivation — an underpinning of our county economy. (“Yes, Virginia,” the objections are about more than just growing marijuana for medical uses). Prop. 215, passed in 1996, further opened the door to our ever-growing marijuana economy.
Butte County’s medical marijuana cultivation law will be up for a referendum vote during the June 5 primary election.
“On May 24, after a series of hugely crowded, passionate, often angry hearings, the (Butte) supervisors adopted the ordinance,” as CalPotNews.com reports. “Opponents to the ordinance immediately started a petition drive and by early August the county clerk-recorder’s office certified enough signatures had been collected to quality the measure for the ballot.”
Likewise, a “hugely crowded, passionate, often angry hearing” occurred at the Rood Center on Tuesday. (We watched some of it on NCTV). Some of the crowd was uncivil at times too, forcing Board Chairman Ted Owens to gently bang the gavel and address the group.
You can expect a petition drive to protest whatever is passed on May 8 despite this “cooling off period” on the issue. And just like Butte County, our ordinance likely will go to a public vote.
Unruly, disrespectful behavior in public discourse is unfortunate, because it just causes further polarization — but that’s nothing new in our community.
Marijuana cultivation in residential neighborhoods should be guided by respect and the Golden Rule — just like any other neighborhood activity. But nowadays our society is more guided by self-centered behavior.
It’s a sign of the times: An ever-growing mindset of “do unto others before they do unto you.” Sometimes the voting process helps bring civility back to public decision-making. In the ballot booth, each person can quietly decide in private without the noisy rhetoric.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I listened on KVMR. Long meeting, and sounded pretty What was originally proposed to somehow handle public nuisance grows, has grown to having to build another structure on your property to grow in (you can’t grow in the same place you live in) and having any growers register with the Sheriffs office. I have a hard time believing that these growers will be running down to the sheriffs office to sign themselves up. And where would they get (or pay for) the manpower to run the pot police?
The cost of such a vote would be $40 to $50 thousand dollars, (I’m not sure those numbers are accurate). And that will be another debate. But what I heard from an attorney that spoke, lawsuits are going to be filed if this is adopted, because the sheriff didnt condider the ASAs (safe access) proposals.
I totally agree that any activity that impacts your neighbors should be guided out of respect. And yes “The Golden Rule”. I just hope these people can iron this out, without it costing the County (us) so much at a time when were in such a crunch as it is-
This is a vigilant group, and it could be on the ballot in a general election:
See #9145:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=36837211335+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
If they could get around the qualifiers in order to get on the June ballot the better for all of us, but It’s the “Special Election” language in there that’s worrisome.
Should the financing of a special election be born by the warring parties? Say Alta Sierra Homeowners and Americans For Safe Access (these seem to be the tails wagging this dog) cough up $20k each?
There would be no time for the June ballot with the “88 day rule” (see #9145). I’m hopeful for a compromise w/o going to a vote, but there are some strong-willed people in this debate.
I think that the assessment that the meeting was “Often angry” is way off the mark. I was there from start to finish and even as Owens stated – people were generally very well behaved. I did cringe at the fool who yelled “Liar!” at the Fish & Game warden – but I also was quite disappointed in the Alta Sierra folks who after taking their turns to speak thought it fine to carry on conversations while others were speaking.
By and large, for the passions of both sides, the light should be shined on just how civil it actually was.
Another pattern I noticed was that the anti-ordinance folks almost all expressed empathy for those who have had nuisance neighbors – but that empathy was hardly reciprocal; the pro-ordinance vibe was “Too bad you’re sick, but it’s well known that if you need weed just go to Commercial Street and buy it on the street.
That’s what I call uncivil.
Thanks Peter. But the rants were noticeable and inexcusable. Those of us in the middle are sick and tired of it.
Thanks Jeff. Would you elaborate the middle to which you refer on this ordinance?
As this was the only BOS meeting on the ordinance I don’t understand the implication that there is some history of “ranting,” or that it was commonplace. Again, the consensus If you would, I’d love to understand your perspective.
The focus on the negative, rather than the positive that there was general agreement on both sides that something needs to be done, combined with a conspicuous lack of you covering this issue prior to the meeting seems to indicate to me that you’re not quite really in the middle on this issue.
People in the middle are ambivalent about the marijuana cultivation ordinance, seeing the pros and cons of it. They are tired, however, of people who are passionate about the issue and try to make their point in an uncivil, disrespectful tone.
I don’t believe that the group at the meeting was representative of our county. I’m curious what percentage of them travelled to the meeting from outside our county. I believe that most residents do not want any kind of ‘grows’ in their neighborhood/ communities. After all it remains an illegal activity. If the Feds decide to raid a ‘grow’ it will happen. I do believe that their are medicinal benefits to marijuana but the present ridiculous system of distribution is also aiding and abetting those that use for recreational purposes only. Am I in the ‘middle’?
You are!
I actually spoke at the meeting as I had a good friend who recently passed after growing and self medicating himself for the past 4 years.
Don was a good decent and very conservative guy, and Sheriff Royal did a double turn when I spoke about my friend in the BOS meeting, but 2 days before he passed in the Hospice Care Facility he asked me to speak with Todd Juvinall (which I did, and it has completely changed my views of Todd) about the mmj issue and how CABPRO shoould support it.
I am not connected with this, but I felt that the crowd was very civil and respectful of the space. Now I know that there were several very small outbursts, but when you get @400 people in a facility (some in the room and many more listening outside) I felt that the majority of the speakers made their points without being overtly disrespectful.
After being asked to speak and seeing concerns by other neighborhood groups and patients, I feel that reasonible regulations are necessary to protect both groups.
When I read the ordiance “as written” it did not meet those goals, so it needs to be revised before it moves forward.
How did Todd respond to CABPRO’s concern on the mmj issue?
I wrote a long post on this yesterday, but it disappeared before I could post it. I won’t even try to recreate it, except to say, I expect BOS to vote against allowing cultivation (4-1 at best), regardless of what the public says in favor. They’ll cite federal law and listen to the Sheriff and old, arguments, still based mostly on Reefer Madness and Nixon’s ignorning his commission’s recommendation to not classify pot with heroin, which he did anyway. I admit to not having read the ord. and also what has happened state wide is out of control, which destroys the intent of the voter’s approval.
It has been used as medicine for thousands of years. Legal medicines now contain a list a mile long of all the side effects, some possibly fatal. If someone has committed a crime, and authorities find traces of pot in their system along with alcohol, meth, etc., guaranteed, it wasn’ t the pot that made them do the crime; all other drugs, or alcohol alwys overwhelm pot into insignificance and become the controlling substance. With just pot, the biggest crime, is raiding the refrigerator for cookies and milk then falling asleep watching TV w/o brushing your teeth.
Obama told the feds to lay off medical users at first, but then the whole system came under assault by the opportunists and abusers, threatening to ruin it for those who rely on pot for the relief it does provide. Then came the crack down. Personally, I believe and hope this crackdown is mainly–until CA works it out–a preventive step against the right wing in an election year so this issue can not be used against Obama, saying, “Hey, look what he’s letting happen in California.” That kind of attack would play well in my areas of this country. Just some thoughts.
Maybe Ed, but after listening to the huge number of legal problems in their proposed ordinance this will be shot down as soon as it’s up and operational.
Consider this….. This group (Americans for Safe Access) has 3 of the top cannabis attorneys working “pro-bono” on this. These attorneys stated that there were a huge number of problems with the current ordinance and county counsel sat there and said “I think it will hold water”…..
These 3 attorneys have made over $12 million dollars in the past 3 years from municipalities (such as ours) and I do not want to be adding any more money into their bank accounts, but county counsel said (it’ll hold water!) and after seeing what she’s done so far I wouldn’t place much creedance into her abilities as a MMJ based attorney.
I did read a number of cases that have set the ground rules for these arguments, and if she does not see the problems we should get rid of her quick, as I went to engineering school (not law school) and I can see these problems as clear as day!
I am hoping that this is not the same (but I’m afraid that it is) county counsel person that also worked on the Diaz case.
I hope that one of the lawyers who spoke at the BOS meeting might be willing to work on the committee to revise this current monstrosity into something that will survive a court challenge.
Otherwise you will see a TRO (Temp restraining Order) and Injunction filed so fast it’ll make your head spin!
Great points, Brad. Well thought out comment.
I will also add that if pot were legal, the criminal element problem would be a moot point.
Agreed completely Michael, but unfortunately with the group of county folks it’s seeming like “if monkeys could fly,” I would make millions with my “chromium plated, fully illuminated, genuine accessory monkey detector”! LOL!!!!!
Have a teriffic evening!
Well, Brad, I just finished reading the proposed cultivation ordinance. My first overall impression of this “piece of work” is its sheer incredulity and its positioning as a local law, within a state which has legalized the substance in questance for a segment of the population under certain conditions, but then proceeds to discuss the issue in language that accepts the premise of Federal illegalality. Jeez, this ordinance is almost as long as the U.S. Constitution w/o the Amendments and there’s a good chance that document was at least drafted on hemp paper.
I totally agree with you that this legislation has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory and while I’m not a lawyer either, many of its provisions seem outrageous, arguing their case with many specious “dangers” aimed at people’s fears and clearly aimed at suppressing a right granted by the popular vote of Californians. Regulations are rigid and don’t allow for specific local conditions. A one person Czar, whom rules on the evidence whose decision is final. And I don’t think this ordinance will “hold water” as the county counsel(s) proclaimed, unless of course any law suit is filed in the court of a judge they feel confident will rule in their favor. ( While common practice nationally, again, I admit to ignorance regarding what is possible locally in this regard. Example: Which judges would sit on the proper courts to hear this kind of law suit–a Civil suit, I presume.) The more I hear Scalia talk, the more I believe the law can be twisted to mean whatever one wants it to mean. (Who are those pundits that called him brilliant? Personally I prefer the brilliance wrought from a sharp, scholarlly mind integrated with instinctual common sense mixed with that nebulous wisdom know as “street smarts.”) And, per the outcome of the BOS vote on a more reasonable, balanced ordinance, I’m sure you know all the principals involved in this process, or at least most of them, while I know none, except having encountered Mr. Beason at the well attended, and mostly adversarial, Veterans neeting several years ago. Sue Horne was there , too. So, your opinion on what these people might do, I’m sure is more informed and of more value than mine.
And regarding my previous post, I’d like to respond to the “Maybe, Ed,” but not sure to wat you are referring: everything, paragraph 1,2 or 3. For clarification. #1 was mostly venting, based on the banning of dispenseries, which I agree with for N.C., but not sure about G.V. It just seemed so automatic. Personally, I could care less, either way, but it seemed so regressive; so in tune with the spirit of decades of disinformation spewing from governmental sources and people whom know nothing about it. And I’m on very powerful meds now, so don’t really care about pot. #2 are statements based on experience, having had a near fatal reaction to one of the components of R-CHOP, my last chemo protocol. And, I’m sure everyone has had bad, even serious reactions to some meds. Tylenol is infamous for causing liver failure. And, having indeed been a wild man running with a wild crowd, ala HunterThompson, but not quite–even my first Australian Shepherd was named Savage Lucy–I firmly believe the cookie analogy, which was written with a light touch. And #3 was total speculation and I could be as wrong about that as I was when I cast my first ever vote–from my fox hole in Nam–for Nixon.
But I’m glad you and Michael responded, as it compelled me to actually read the ordinance and learn something new. I’m always for that, as I spend so much time, fruitlessly it seems, corresponding people from my past back east–Obama haters mostly–tactfully trying to explain that opinions need support from valid sources. It is a very hard concept to impress upon, blue collar, high school drop out types, who only know how to debate as if they are in a bar; keep yell the same point, luder and louder and never answer any questions. Cheers, and I enjoy learning from all that post here,
Was an Other Voices piece in today’s Union, basically anti medical marijuana, cultivtion, etc. It was filled with outlandish and false claims concerning not only trends in US, but what and why laws have changed in the Netherlands and England–not to mention gov’ts changed to become right wing and the Dutch right wing gov’t just fell. I spent too much time fact checking his assertions, but just another person writing on a subject he knows nothing about.
I used to say Nixon knows as much about pot as he does sex, which is nothing, because, Bebe Rebozo did him the favor and sired the two girls.