Citizen’s group pens own cannabis ordinance

The Plumas County Board of Supervisors voted Nov. 7 to send a draft ordinance prepared by the Citizen’s Group for a Responsible Cannabis Ordinance to the Plumas County Planning Commission for review.

The CGRCO is composed of concerned citizens opposed to commercial cannabis activity in Plumas County.

After forming in September 2017, the group developed an alternative to the draft ordinance by the Cannabis Working Group, which the CGRCO considers too lenient to adequately protect the rights, safety and health of Plumas citizens and the financial security of Plumas County.

On Oct. 24, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a moratorium prohibiting commercial cannabis activity in Plumas County.The moratorium will last 45 days.

The board will meet again Monday, Nov. 27, to consider an extension of the moratorium preserving the board’s ability to pass an ordinance regulating cannabis beyond the critical date of Jan. 1. After that date, regulating authority will shift to the state for counties that have not passed an ordinance or a moratorium.

The CGRCO does not take a position on the medical or personal consumption of marijuana that was legalized in California via state propositions passed in 1996 and 2016, respectively.However, the group does address how and where personal and medical marijuana is grown in Plumas County.

CGRCO’s primary concern is the cultivation, manufacture and distribution of marijuana as a commercial undertaking. This is due to its potential to damage the environment and negatively impact tourism, property values, and rural lifestyles. The group is also concerned that the commercial marijuana culture would increase criminal activity, as well as have a deleterious influence on youth in local communities.

According to CGRCO, “We have catalogued the experiences of other rural California counties that have allowed commercial cultivation, only to find that any increase to their budgets has been far outweighed by problems created by marijuana-related businesses.”

For more information about CGRCO, visit PlumasGrow.com, where citizens can also find a copy of CGRCO’s alternative ordinance.

5 thoughts on “Citizen’s group pens own cannabis ordinance

  • November 17, 2017 at 9:43 am
    Permalink

    I do not agree!!!

  • November 17, 2017 at 9:47 am
    Permalink

    I strongly disagree!!!

  • November 19, 2017 at 5:52 am
    Permalink

    “CGRCO’s primary concern is the cultivation, manufacture and distribution of marijuana as a commercial undertaking.”
    ^ This is untrue, I would strongly recommend anyone who supports this groups efforts because they disagree with commercial grows, but supports medical or personal to read this ordinance. It’s extraordinarily restrictive of medical and personal, to point that 80% to 90% of plumas citizens who are currently growing for medical needs will no longer have that right. This ordinance is not about commercial grows it is about about ideology, it is restrictive of medical needs to the point of being mean spirited, unkind and discompassionate.

  • November 19, 2017 at 7:04 am
    Permalink

    I grow six plants for medical needs, I’ve always gone above and beyond to not only comply with the law but to also be considerate to my neighbors, I built a fence around my greenhouse before anyone asked, I’ve never had any trouble law enforcement or my neighbors, now under this ordinance I would not be allowed to grow, period, why who am I harming? Commercial is one thing but medical and personal should absolutely be left alone. This ordinance would inflict undue hardship on law abiding Plumas county citizens like myself.

    Everyone should plan on attending the meeting on November 27 at 10:00 A.M. at the courthouse, room 308, 3rd floor and be polite and respectful, offer your seat to an elderly citizen, help to facilitate…

    • November 19, 2017 at 7:18 am
      Permalink

      ^ help to facilitate understanding. Cannabis consumers represent just about every profession in this county, our needs shouldn’t be ignored.

Comments are closed.