If you voted for Prop 64 did you imagine this could happen?

The Citizens Group for a Responsible Cannabis Ordinance does not seek to prevent the responsible adult use of cannabis. We also support the compassionate use of marijuana for the treatment of medical conditions. California voters spoke in November 2016 by passing Prop. 64, and we respect their vote.

Prop. 64 gives counties and municipalities the right to restrict cannabis activities. Our ordinance draft allows the growing of up to six plants per residence and allows for delivery of medical marijuana, but prohibits commercial cannabis. We have submitted our proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission through our county’s Board of Supervisors.

There is an initiative that will likely appear on the November ballot that would bypass the Board of Supervisors. It’s titled, “Medicinal and Adult Use of Cannabis Ordinance.”

We are puzzled by its title because it seems to lead citizens to think there are legal protections needed to ensure residents’ rights to use cannabis legally under Propositions 64 and 215 and Senate Bill 94. This right has already been established with the passage of the two propositions.

The reality is that this ordinance will allow any and all forms of commercial cannabis activity. It includes the following paragraph:

“In November 2016, a majority of voters of Plumas County voted to approve Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). Under Proposition 64, adults 21 years of age or older may legally grow, possess, and use cannabis for non-medicinal purposes, with certain restrictions.”

This language acknowledges that “certain restrictions” apply with the legalization of recreational marijuana. What are they?

Counties and cities were given the power to define how — and if — commercial grow operations would operate. They were also given the power to regulate how individuals can grow plants for personal use. Should this initiative pass, county government will have no say in either situation.

By their own admission, the writers of this initiative concede that commercial cannabis cultivation would lead to “deleterious population growth and a strain on limited County resources.”    

From their ordinance:

“In order to limit potentially deleterious population growth that may follow approval of commercial cannabis activity in the County, and in order to avoid the strain on limited County resources that such a spike in population growth may cause, the County will place a temporary limit on the number of Licenses issued to Non-Residents.”

Ask yourself this: Would Plumas County benefit from an influx of people connected to commercial cannabis? Even the initiative writers admit that such an influx would put a “strain on limited County resources.”

Proposition 64 was narrowly approved in Plumas County by a 52 percent to 48 percent vote. The commercial growers would have you believe that it passed overwhelmingly here; it did not.

If you voted for the approval of Proposition 64, did you think you were simply voting to decriminalize the possession and selling of cannabis and make recreational cannabis legal?

Did you imagine that the passage of Prop. 64 would lead to a ballot initiative that would allow large commercial growing operations here in Plumas County?

Did you imagine that dispensaries — including onsite consumption dispensaries — would come to our county?

When the Keep Plumas Green group obtained the signatures needed to get their ordinance on the November 2018 ballot, do you suppose they told signers that onsite consumption could include public events at locations around Plumas County?

Was it made clear that a “caregiver” would be able to grow up to 36 plants (their own and up to five other users) next to your home and would be exempt from licensing requirements?

Was it made clear that commercial operations could be located close to your child’s K-12 school or preschool with only a 600 foot or 1,000 foot buffer depending on the type of commercial operation?

Was it made clear that local growers would be given exceptions from meeting CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements?

Was it made clear that by going through the initiative process their ordinance would evade the (now underway) usual county planning process?

The (CGRCO) in no way seeks to prevent the responsible adult use of recreational marijuana or the use of medical marijuana. Don’t let the proponents of this self-serving initiative deceive you. Their goal is to allow commercial marijuana activities in all corners of our county.

Encourage your family, friends and neighbors to help spread the word. Go to the CGRCO website (plumasgrow.com) to register your support. We also have a Facebook page at Facebook.com/plumasgrow/.

Stand with us against the proliferation of commercial cannabis in Plumas County.

53 thoughts on “If you voted for Prop 64 did you imagine this could happen?

  • April 27, 2018 at 1:02 pm
    Permalink

    local citizens need to make sure the moratorium continues past May 2018. More research and information on local impact has to be done.

  • April 27, 2018 at 4:06 pm
    Permalink

    Reefer madness, too funny this. In the real world sane people see markets self regulating as supply has surpassed demand, prices are down, the economy has recovered, and many growers have gone back to their previous occupations. I personally don’t see an influx of cannabis farmers entering the county, land is expensive, rarely flat, high in altitude, and there isn’t a lot of it. The county should embrace the few that have been willing to move here. As for not allowing dispensaries, there is no excuse to deny safe access to a very legal drug, none.

    Unfortunately there are those in the county that feel nothing should ever change. I notice many are retired with pensions, their houses are built and paid for, their kids have been raised…

    • April 27, 2018 at 4:17 pm
      Permalink

      One thing they may not realize the struggles younger generations have faced to make a living in this county. From my perspective, in a county with a medium income of 27k any growth is good growth.

    • April 27, 2018 at 7:59 pm
      Permalink

      Uh oh.
      Tax payer/voter is out of rehab. again

    • April 28, 2018 at 8:18 am
      Permalink

      ” As for not allowing dispensaries, there is no excuse to deny safe access to a very legal drug, none.”
      I agree, 1000%.

  • April 27, 2018 at 4:07 pm
    Permalink

    Rebuttal:
    1. “The reality is that this ordinance would allow any and all forms of commercial cannabis activity”.
    False. It prohibits license types: 5,5A, 5B, 3A, and 7; medicinal and adult use. All of this is in Chapter 6 of MAUCO. Type 5 is large cultivation sites, type 3A is large indoor sites, and type 7 is volatile manufacturing.
    2. “Ask yourself, would Pumas County benefit from an influx of people connected to commercial cannabis?”
    That’s a trick question. I don’t know of any municipality that can handle an influx of a large population overnight, without draining resources. Calaveras is a great example of not being mindful that slow and steady growth is key to homeostasis in a community where not everyone wants the same…

    • April 27, 2018 at 8:03 pm
      Permalink

      “Ask yourself, would Pumas County benefit from an influx of people connected to commercial cannabis?”

      Absolutely not.

      I don’t want anybody connected to commercial cannabis sharing our slice of heaven. Why not go someplace where you might be welcome? It obviously isn’t here.

      • April 27, 2018 at 8:29 pm
        Permalink

        Slice of heaven? Yes, plumas county is nice, but with a violent crime rate nearly double the state’s average, it ain’t no Mayberry.

        • April 28, 2018 at 6:24 pm
          Permalink

          That’s a lie.

          Per DOJ/FBI 2016 (newest) statistics Plumas crime rates about 48 out of a 100. So a bit less than average for other California counties. Okay, not Mayberry but still better than half the state. Oh, violent crime you say? Still around 1/2 of of Mendocino Counties rate. You know, that nice rural county on the coast you’d love to see us be just like…

          But one thing everyone knows to be true, the more dope you pour into a county/community the higher it’s crime level. That Tax payer/voter is common knowledge globally.

          • April 30, 2018 at 2:45 pm
            Permalink

            @MVIC….Except you left out the part that there are zero statistics yet for regulated cannabis so all your theories are based on the assumption that a regulated small scale market, in which all county government and state officials would be watching and licensees would be following state guidelines, would be exactly the same as an unregulated, black market. I’d take a regulated, transparent cannabis market anyday over an unregulated one.

      • April 28, 2018 at 7:02 am
        Permalink

        Too late Rhonda. See ya at Church tomorrow. xoxo #teachdiversity

  • April 27, 2018 at 4:09 pm
    Permalink

    as their neighbor. Our County has a budget problem, a behavioral health problem, and many other issues that aren’t so black and white, so why not ease into navigating economic growth and adjusting once real statistical data is quantified?
    3.”Did you imagine that the passage of Prop 64 would lead to a ballot initiative that would allow large commercial growing operations here in Plumas County?”
    False. Again, large grow types, and even some medium, have been prohibited in MAUCO. It can be found in Ch. 6.
    4.”Was it made clear that going through the initiative process their ordinance would evade the usual county process?”
    “Evade”? How is this evading? I’m not sorry I used my right as a citizen to handle what the Supervisors…

  • April 27, 2018 at 4:10 pm
    Permalink

    to for two years. The Cannabis Working Group’s ordinance didn’t meet the regulations released by the state in December 2017, 250+ pages of new legislation. The Cannabis Working Group’s Ordinance was outdated within days of them handing it over to the Planning Commission.
    Further, what is “usual”? There’s innate rights every human has in America. As a woman veteran, I didn’t defend our nation and grow up quickly so that I could come home and not have rights.

  • April 27, 2018 at 4:11 pm
    Permalink

    The freedom to petition is equally as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and so on. In closing, a quote from some raggedy piece of hemp paper, called the Declaration of Independence, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

  • April 27, 2018 at 4:17 pm
    Permalink

    5.”Was it made clear that local growers would be given exceptions from meeting CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements?”
    YES:
    Sec. 11-19.102.- The Ordinance is exempt considering California courts have consistently acknowledged their “solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power, and to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of its exercise.” Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 492, 501. The California Supreme Court affirmed this principle when it confirmed that voter-initiatives adopted outright by a governing body are not subject to CEQA. Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, 1035. California Courts have continued to adhere to this principle in upholding,

  • April 27, 2018 at 4:18 pm
    Permalink

    Sec. 11-19.2.101.1.- The priority licensing section of this ordinance is exempt under Section 15061(b) (3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The ordinance permits commercial Cannabis businesses including cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing facilities, and transporter businesses to operate within the County which will have similar impacts to similar businesses that deal in non-cannabis products that are already authorized within the County. Furthermore, the ordinance contains requirements that prevent any potential impacts on the environment that may be unique to businesses involving Cannabis…

  • April 27, 2018 at 4:20 pm
    Permalink

    …For example, the ordinance establishes prohibitions on nuisance odors, glare, and establishes safety protections to prevent crime or deterioration of the business area into blight. Further, there is no possibility that this ordinance would create cumulative impacts that are significant because this ordinance only allows for limited Cannabis businesses in limited zones within the County, does not authorize construction or other related activities or any other activities that are not already permitted, except that the ordinance allows the same activities but with a different material (Cannabis) that is being sold for medicinal or adult use; there are no other significant impacts that could occur as a result of this ordinance.

  • April 27, 2018 at 7:04 pm
    Permalink

    Persistent aren’t they?

    They worry about their rights while ignoring ours.

    Same old poop, different day.

    • April 27, 2018 at 8:37 pm
      Permalink

      I’m sorry Linda, did you actually have a point to make, or are you just making your presence known?

    • April 28, 2018 at 7:00 am
      Permalink

      I don’t appreciate the weekly “Where I Stand” to continue defamatory, “fake news” commentary, Feather River is doing an injustice to journalism and media at this point for it’s people it serves. To paint the “Anti” as informed and free to state made up fallacious facts, and the “Pro” as receiving an ordinance that fits all of their progressive needs, is not only counterproductive, but it’s a LIE. That isn’t what MAUCO is- that’s hysteria and uninformed citizens making objective facts into subjective truths, and that’s not cool for anyone. You’re welcome I clarified parts of the 50 pages of legalities, that is MAUCO, a robust set of regulations in which both sides of the aisle can meet in the middle. Let the BANQUET begin.

  • April 27, 2018 at 11:17 pm
    Permalink

    Interesting that some of the people here making the most noise have a financial dog in this issue. We don’t need pot store in Chester or a 10,000 square foot indoor grow in a small town.

    • April 28, 2018 at 6:49 am
      Permalink

      MAUCO doesn’t allow for that latter indoor grow license type you speak of…

    • April 28, 2018 at 6:51 am
      Permalink

      So what?

      • April 28, 2018 at 8:11 am
        Permalink

        I don’t have any financial interests in cannabis, I don’t even buy it. I support legal commercial cannabis in Plumas County because it is better from a public safety standpoint, and for the environment to buy from a monitored, regulated source, than it is to buy from the pre-existing black market in Plumas.

        “We don’t need pot store in Chester”
        You already have several, and have for decades; they just don’t have a sign on the front, or pay taxes or card minors.
        People have been growing and selling cannabis here since the late seventies, maybe longer. Legalization is an opportunity for the public to implement some control over something that already exists, not opening the doors to something new.

  • April 28, 2018 at 7:34 pm
    Permalink

    I guess the only question left is, when will plumas county begin issuing licenses?

  • April 29, 2018 at 8:36 am
    Permalink

    Rhonda,
    This comment you made, “I don’t want anybody connected to commercial cannabis sharing our slice of heaven. Why not go someplace where you might be welcome? It obviously isn’t here.”

    I’m curious how you justify it? Who doesn’t want it here? The citizens voted for it, it was the Board of Supervisors who went against that vote, not the citizens. If you comment was just, then it would be fair for us to tell you to move somewhere else, where it wasn’t supported.

    Your little slice of heaven comment is based on the assumption that no commercial grows have been happening here, they are a very large part of this community and have been for 20+ years. You act like somehow your rights are more important than theirs How does that work?

    • May 2, 2018 at 8:16 am
      Permalink

      There’s that apples and oranges argument again. We voted to be allowed to posess a bag of weed, the right to grow six plants in the back yard and for our county to make its own determination on commercial cultivation and sales. Please try to keep up.

      GingerR

    • May 2, 2018 at 8:18 am
      Permalink

      Simple. My lifestyle here has always been legal. How about yours?

      • May 3, 2018 at 5:10 am
        Permalink

        “Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

        Thoughts and prayers for godless liberal nanny Rick’s doomed soul

  • April 29, 2018 at 11:25 pm
    Permalink

    Again I see the very people who will make money off this passing making the most noise so they can line their own pockets at the expense of Plumas County residents.
    Vote no!!!

    • April 30, 2018 at 5:25 am
      Permalink

      This article is factually incorrect, there is a huge amount of patently false information presented by the author. As the co-author of the MAUCO ordinance, it is only logical that she has taken the time to correct these fallacious statements.

    • April 30, 2018 at 6:38 am
      Permalink

      Who cares? Grower’s will make money, leagal or not. Many of these folks have been cultivating cannabis long before it was legal, an ordinance may scare off a few, but not many. But thanks for confirming your biggest concern is someone might make a profit. Are you a communist?

      • May 2, 2018 at 10:37 am
        Permalink

        Do you have a stake in the county’s future? Do you pay taxes and vote in Plumas?

        • May 2, 2018 at 5:52 pm
          Permalink

          Born and raised, but thanks for confirming you don’t believe in state’s rights. Are you a liberal nanny like Rick?

          • May 2, 2018 at 10:02 pm
            Permalink

            Nope. Far from it. Just making sure you’re a Plumas homeboy. Of course, I believe in state’s rights. You for commercial cannabis? I think it would be a bad deal.

    • April 30, 2018 at 2:54 pm
      Permalink

      @Phaedra….there are plenty of people in this community who would completely disagree with your comment. After your first comment on here, you were corrected by Heart of Plumas, who not only said they don’t make money off of it, but they don’t even purchase it but they still believe that it would be better for the county in the interest of Public Safety as well as the environment for it to be regulated. Along with those two facts, I would also like to express that some of us purely support the cannabis community because of these three reasons because it gives patients medical access to treatments they need as well as the fact that we support small business in Plumas County and the county tax margin would increase. #beinformed

  • April 30, 2018 at 3:03 pm
    Permalink

    To the author of this opinionated and misinformed piece, you are wrong about a few things. I see someone else has corrected you on the legal pieces and I will correct some of these statements. “We also support the compassionate use of marijuana in medical treatments”. I think you meant to add in an extra line that stated “except we won’t let you purchase your medical marijuana locally like you used to.” And… “You can now pay twice as much and wait for a few days for your medicine to be delivered by someone outside of the county so that we can feel like we support medical marijuana”. I realize your group is now trying to paint a picture that you care about the people who had access before but you’ve taken their rights away.

  • April 30, 2018 at 3:09 pm
    Permalink

    Not only have you taken medical access away from patients, but you are now lining the pockets of business outside of our county whilst taking away the livelihood of local residents who were operating legally before Prop 64. You are depleting the economy of Plumas County by giving the money and taxes to outside businesses and somehow making yourself feel special by “allowing them to get it delivered”. Maybe we should do the same for opioids or antibiotics and make people wait days for their medicine and only allow all Plumas County residents to obtain any form of pharmaceuticals from outside the county. That makes sense right? Patients stood before this group and before the BOS begging to have medical access and it was denied.

  • April 30, 2018 at 6:39 pm
    Permalink

    Sakuragirl let’s be really clear here… at least one of the authors of MAUCO posting on this very article owns the pot store that recently opened in Chester so yes a financially vested interest and clearly to make profit. Or does one purchase a building and warehouse to grow and sell pot to not make money? Show up in town buy property to start a weed business then try and shove MAUCO to the citizens of Plumas County as if they are doing us a favor? Don’t be fooled!

    • April 30, 2018 at 8:01 pm
      Permalink

      I clearly don’t understand your lingo. What is a pot store? I need you to clarify that. Also, why wouldn’t she be concerned that her right to own a local small business that was operating under California law prior to prop 64 is now not able to provide for medical patients countywide? I’m pretty sure we live in a democracy still where when you want to see change happen, you have the legal right to do so. She has in no way stated anything but clear facts regarding the initiative that she’s involved with to counterbalance the propaganda and disinformation being spread in this article. It’s one thing to have a valid arguing point, and it’s another thing to just try to bash something you don’t agree with in hopes to sway some voters.

  • April 30, 2018 at 7:56 pm
    Permalink

    I do not own a cannabis store. I do not own a warehouse. I did not just show up in town. Been here almost 5 years, and still an active member of our community, ask anyone. You don’t know me. I served on a Kindergarten Assoc. for years representing 700+ early educators and made sure MAUCO represented this; I’m a special needs mother, military veteran, and you don’t get to paint my character in this negative connotation. Otherwise I’m guessing you’re speaking of the co-author? Because that too, is slander and won’t be treaded lightly on.

    • May 2, 2018 at 10:35 am
      Permalink

      Chelsea B,

      Do you own The Grow Spot in Chester? Cuz its website has you listed as one of the Bunches who own it. Your site appears to advertise a general gardening supply shop, yet your name hints at something more.

      What’s up?

      • May 3, 2018 at 8:20 pm
        Permalink

        Hi Brandon! Yes, my husband owns a nursery. I’m his wife, so we figured you should see the family since it’s a small business and a small town. His store offers nutrients and soil commonly used for cannabis cultivation. Come on in and say hi, It’s a store for all green thumb enthusiasts… roses, bulbs, buds, and beyond- no discrimination here 🙂

  • April 30, 2018 at 8:21 pm
    Permalink

    The behavior of this group that is completely anti cannabis is appalling to me. You would be better sticking to facts then actually trying to discredit responsible citizens. I’m pro cannabis and see it’s medicinal value and I have a fantastic position in the California Community College system, have given hundreds and hundreds of volunteer hours helping the youth of this county for 20 years and am a very happy and balanced adult that contributes to the health of our community. That IS Plumas County. Balanced people are the backbone of Plumas. I will leave you with a quote that our sherriff stated, “And to the anti-commercial groups, I would encourage you to be accurate, factual and civil in your discourse.”

  • April 30, 2018 at 8:56 pm
    Permalink

    I stand corrected…
    The pot store is a non profit organization. My apologies.

  • May 1, 2018 at 5:01 am
    Permalink

    For the record, I actually live in the city of Portola. That means none of these laws even apply to me personally. I do not own any business at the moment. Although, I did manage the local delivery service prior to the moratorium,and for a short time I owned an edible company, but that too was shut down by the moratorium.

    To be honest, I’m really quite poor. I spent a year taking care of my father with cancer by giving him cannabis oil, and it saved his life. Also, I don’t personally even use cannabis, but I believe in people’s right to choose that for themselves.

    Once this is done, I have no plans to return to the cannabis industry, but instead plan to work on other broken areas of local government. So, that covers all the authors.

  • May 1, 2018 at 2:23 pm
    Permalink

    Cannabis is Legal in CA.
    Alcohol is Legal in CA.

    I grow organic cannabis….
    I’m starting an organic commercial vineyard in plumas county……..

    I pay taxes and DO NOT cut trees down.
    Who’s got a problem with what?

    This is hilarious. No one wants the next guy to make an extra dollar.

    By the way. No one buys outdoor weed at dispensaries. Growers are selling for as low as $300 a lb and it cost $100 plus to trim.
    People hear of 10lb plants. In plumas, average is 1 lb.. Even if one person works all year to grow 100 plants and gets 1 lb a plant. After expenses. About 24k a year. WOW
    Realistically, plumas is no Humboldt. Short grow season not ideal. Wouldn’t worry about influx of growers…….. There is not much land with…

  • May 1, 2018 at 2:25 pm
    Permalink

    No land with water for sale. No grows. Black market pounds. $800-$1500
    Legal CA dispensary market $300-500 per lb. And they usually take only one.

  • May 1, 2018 at 9:42 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you!!!! Plumas will never be Humboldt or Calaveras counties. The environment here is too harsh for large scale commercial cultivation. The medical cannabis that’s grown here stays here and benefits local residents. Why not give growers the option to go legal and pay taxes.

    • May 2, 2018 at 8:24 am
      Permalink

      The weather inside is controlled. Harsh weather not a issue for the year around cultivator. Why try and feed us that?

      All the pot grown here stays here??

      Who are you trying to kid? Total fail.

      • May 2, 2018 at 5:54 pm
        Permalink

        Jeff, you’ll have to excuse liberal nanny Rick, he doesn’t believe in state’s rights or free market capitalism, sad huh?

  • May 3, 2018 at 10:24 am
    Permalink

    It is sad because these people don’t seem to realize that when small businesses thrive in Plumas County, so does the local economy. The kids of these business owners go to school here, they themselves shop here, they buy things for their businesses locally. Not to mention that if a medical patient even has the means to travel far away to have to get their medicine, won’t they also do their shopping out of town? Why is it so hard for people to realize that? Also, why would it be so hard to realize that a small cannabis business owner might sell beyond Plumas County legally? If someone wants to have a business selling cannabis infused topical pain creams, should they be allowed to maybe increase their sales by marketing to other businesses?

Comments are closed.