Concerned citizens pack the county supervisors’ boardroom Sept. 5 to express their concerns and listen to the board’s opinion on the Draft Cannabis Ordinance presented by the board-appointed Cannabis Working Group. Photo by Carolyn Shipp

Supervisors hear the voices of no-growers

A packed room at the Plumas County Board of Supervisors meeting in Quincy on Sept. 5 heard the strong opinions of board members and Plumas County citizens, many of them calling for stricter commercial growing regulations in the final Cannabis Ordinance.

Chairman of the board Lori Simpson started a discussion item with a stern warning to all in attendance.

“This room is going to be civil.” Simpson said. “If you don’t like what another person said, keep your comments to yourself or you are going to be out, and I am not messing around.”

The room was silent despite the many people standing, sitting cross-legged or overflowing out of the room.

Planning Director Randy Wilson reviewed the status of the ordinance process.

The Cannabis Working Group is made up of two supervisors, Kevin Goss and Jeff Engel, and five community members representing each of the five districts. The representatives were selected through an open application process.

“It was open for everybody to apply and I wanted balance,” Simpson said. “A lot of the people who applied were the ones that work in this industry. … There is some idea that we appointed a pro-marijuana group, and that is not the truth. If we had some other people on the opposite [side apply] I would have appointed them.”

The committee met over the past eight months and drafted the ordinance, initiated community forums and received feedback on the draft ordinance. Wilson said the next step was to take in the information received from the public forums and apply it to the draft.

Though the Board of Supervisors won’t vote on the draft until it has been finalized by the planning department, Supervisor Michael Sanchez requested discussion of the draft be on the agenda in response to protests from his constituents in Eastern Plumas County concerning its contents. Each board member, over the course of the discussion, also said their constituents expressed concerns about the document.

“I received an overwhelming plea from my constituents to discontinue, ban or at a minimum place a moratorium on cultivation,” Sanchez read in a statement at the board meeting. “The current trend is an aggressive intent to expand cultivation in hopes or assumptions that the ordinance will be approved by the Board of Supervisors.”

Supervisor Lori Simpson had a stern message for Plumas county citizens intent on expanding their grows too early, assuming the draft ordinance would allow their increased activity.

“It is disrespectful of the people who have gone out and started big operations,” Simpson said. “It is a blatant disregard of the ordinance process.”

Sanchez requested an immediate moratorium on cultivation to avoid a “gold-rush” situation, where growers see the potential freedom in the draft ordinance and flock to the county. A moratorium would prevent any expansion of existing grow sites and any purchases of new sites until the ordinance is in place.

During the public comment period, the room was split between those who favored the direction the draft was going and those who did not. Overall, the main complaint for those against the draft was the relaxed regulations on commercial cannabis.

“The draft suggests that money is what matters and only money,” said Joseph Munoz, a community member against the growth of commercial cannabis. “What about community?”

Some of the commenters called for a dissolution of the working group and for the Board of Supervisors to tackle the ordinance directly.

“I would like to at least give the working group the professional courtesy of letting them go at least a few more meetings,” said Supervisor Sherrie Thrall. “I am really pleased that this is the first time people who are against cannabis in some way or another have started to voice their opinion. … I need to hear all of that.”

The board agreed to allow the working group to meet two more times and then present the draft ordinance for discussion at the Tuesday, Oct. 3 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Simpson ended the discussion by encouraging community members to attend the Cannabis Working Group meetings the first and third Thursday of the month, but a special meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 14, at 10 a.m. in the courthouse.

27 thoughts on “Supervisors hear the voices of no-growers

  • September 19, 2017 at 12:55 pm
    Permalink

    I think Mr. Munoz is a very nice person, however if he really was concerned about ‘the community’, maybe he should ponder the effects that the Pumas club, Pangaea Pub, the Wine bar, and the Sports Bar bring to our downtown ‘community’. Honestly, these folks who want to ban it have no real reason other than they are victims of life long propaganda that cannabis is bad for you, the devils lettuce if you will, and a much more harmful activity, the very real vice called alcohol, should be accepted as being an normalized thread in the fabric of our town.

    Modest rules and regulations are not bad, and in fact prop 64 (of which this is all based on, and something i personally was against for various reasons) was passed by the will of the voters of this fine state to do just that! Prop 64 is poorly written legislation, pieced together by rich folks and higher ups in government and law enforcement. It is no surprise to me that our local law enforcement is against setting up even a modest cannabis industry in our county. If a ban, aka ‘moritorium’, is put in place here, the local sheriffs and chp will still be able to fine and arrest those involved in commercial cannabis.

    The good thing is that homegrown is here to stay, forever, for everyone. You can grow 6 plants if you like (and its not hard to get upwards of 5+ pounds per plant with a little love and lots of soil and water). And if you decide to use cannabis as a spiritual sacrament, or even a medicine, well then the reality is you can grow as much as you feel necessary. Those are rights no one not the sheriff, not the chp, not our local DA or Judges, not the handful of people who think they represent all our views aka the BOS, no one can take away your rights to grow for spiritual or medicinal reasons. Don’t let them fool you to think otherwise. Many court cases have set precedent on this.

    The funny thing is the quality of cannabis that has been coming out of Plumas county for as long as I can remember is average at best. Indoor facilities are not too common, and the outdoor climate really is a hurdle, of which only the best farmers have been able to adapt to. Most harvest prematurely, or use cultivars that are not ideal for our climate. The future is climate controlled greeenhouses and light deprivation set ups. This is the future of cannabis in CA in general but no more so than places like our little county. If commercial cultivation is allowed, there will be many local and no local folks who think they have what it takes to compete in the market, but trust me most will fail within the first 2 years. Growing cannabis that will compete in the about to be overly saturated market, and that can pass strict quality control testing is not easy, and most farmers who are here growing already would fail these tests and have unmarketable crops. My point is don’t think that Plumas county is going to become Humboldt, or Mendocino, or Trinity. If anything 10-20 good farms will pop up, mostly out of sight and mind from local citizens, and they will go about there business, with the majority of the cannabis they grow leaving the county, yet with most all the tax money staying here in our town that needs it so badly.

    Also can we please use the term ‘farmer’ and not ‘grower’. We are cannabis farmers, and dam proud of it.

    • September 19, 2017 at 8:14 pm
      Permalink

      Love your post and thoughts. you said it best:)

    • September 20, 2017 at 2:04 pm
      Permalink

      Long-time Californians know that “grower” is a preferred term over ‘farmer’, at least in the Central Valley and foothills. A ‘farmer’ is a jack-of-all-trades, adept at tasks from home-making to tractor repair,
      not just sodium halide adjustment.
      Your over-wordy, unproofed Comment may have a point, but also belies a self-righteous attitude peculiar to retro-hippies. Remember us regular folks have long contended with overzealous local law enforcement without the benefit of a profit motive…

      • September 20, 2017 at 2:27 pm
        Permalink

        Bro I’m a 5th generation Nor Cal resident.

        I’ve been farming weed for 16 years. My dad did before me, his uncle before him. I fix water pumps, build French drains, fix small engines, haul equipment, build structures, design landscapes, study ag, and Excell in customer service. So take your one dimensional view somewhere else.

        I will admit my writing is usually pretty wordy, lots of run on sentences.

        Profit motive? You must be unfamiliar with the current cannabis economy.

  • September 19, 2017 at 8:49 pm
    Permalink

    Nobody seems to complain when alfalfa growers drill 16″ ag wells and lower the prehistoric aquifer table in Sierra Valley. Nobody seems to complain when some unmentioned party poisons all the rodents killing all the raptors in the valley along with them. Nobody seems to care that Lake Davis was poisoned and the poisoned dead fish washing up on the shores were killing other animals including domestic dogs. Nobody seems to care that we can’t even reasonably resurface the roads in the county.

    Why fuss about a few legitimate businesses that have conformed to every regulation we have imposed on them and that are investing heavily in bringing business and income to our area?

    • September 20, 2017 at 2:07 pm
      Permalink

      My neighbor has had a ‘grow’ om his property for years and he poisoned all the local critters, dug up the ant mounds, and posted an obnoxious dog.
      What else could the Sierra Valley be good for? It was a native grassland,; that is long gone, maybe a cooperative effort for wildlife is needed. At least it ain’t a golf course…

  • September 19, 2017 at 8:58 pm
    Permalink

    We should fuss. Cannabis is going to be legal, nationwide. And let’s face it, the derivatives from it have really helped people.

    I have friends who have been relieved of the pain and suffering of bodily injury, cancer, and nerve damage by cannabis products. Doctors in conventional clinical settings prescribe cannabis products for pain and morbidity relief. And none of it has the addictive and abusive potential or hazardous materials risk of synthetic opioids.

    Prohibition never stopped alcohol and cannabis has far more redeming value than any alcoholic beverage ever did. I think it’s time we faced reality – cannabis is just another crop and like anything – alcohol, fentanyl, glue or street drugs, the potential is there for abuse and it’s up to us to get a hold of ourselves and grow up and deal with it rather than just try and ban everything out of fear and ignorance. Regulate it like anything else, tax it just the same, and permit it as one would any other similar activity. I SAY LET ‘EM GROW

  • September 19, 2017 at 11:24 pm
    Permalink

    Good call board of supervisors! Let’s throw out a last minute moratorium!
    Good job wasting a year of peoples time putting together a solid ordinance that could provide funds for extra law enforcement, community programs, and income for residents that choose to cultivate. Instead, let’s throw out a ban and keep the black market going. Let’s not collect any tax money.
    People of plumas county won’t stop using cannabis as a medicine and growers won’t stop growing.
    A solid ordinance that collects fees from growers could provide extra money for eradication of guerilla gardens all over our county where our wildlife is poisened, our streams are robbed of water, and the safety of our residents is threatened.
    I also thought the news was based on fact not opinion. This news rag/windshield cleaner makes me sick. I know of about 50 people that have written pro cannabis editorials and this paper chooses to not print any of them.
    Shame on you!!!!!

    • September 20, 2017 at 1:12 pm
      Permalink

      I am sorry this newspaper makes you sick, but you are incorrect in saying that 50 people have written pro cannabis editorials that have not been printed. I am assuming you mean “letters to the editor” since only the editorial board writes editorials. We have run every letter to the editor on the subject that has been submitted. We can only print what we receive.

  • September 19, 2017 at 11:43 pm
    Permalink

    I think a full on ban is the way to go!
    That way I can keep selling my untested
    Powder mold infested chemical drenched weed to grandma, grandpa, cancer patients, and high school kids without paying taxes!
    Thanks plumas board of supervisors!
    I owe you big time!
    My homies in the cartel also thank you!

    • September 20, 2017 at 2:09 pm
      Permalink

      after Jan 1st who needs local supplies? plenty of profit to be made where influence is peddled

  • September 20, 2017 at 6:10 am
    Permalink

    legalize it, tax it and fix roads, schools, infrastructure, ect….

  • September 20, 2017 at 7:27 am
    Permalink

    Cannabis is responsible for the expansion of the human mind, it was human beings first crops. Cannabis provides food, shelter, medicine, and fuel. Cannabis is responsible for community over 10000 years ago. Where farmers till other arts follow therefore farmers are responsible for civilization. Do your own research looking into history don’t be fooled by the cosimer, know your grower eat high quality foods put your money where your mouth is.

    • September 20, 2017 at 2:11 pm
      Permalink

      sloppy writing, unsubstantiated logic.
      it was probably some other “grass” that was first cultivated, or more likely, a tree crop

  • September 20, 2017 at 8:29 am
    Permalink

    ….. anybody have a time machine I borrow so I can go back and attend that special meeting that has been scheduled for “Thursday, Sept. 14, at 10 a.m. in the courthouse”, that sounds like it was/is going to be(?) important. Thanks for the heads up!

  • September 20, 2017 at 12:04 pm
    Permalink

    I grow 3 plants for medical reasons. It is such a balance and sadly some growers get greedy. Our neighborhood on Rush Creek Road seems to have become a grow overnight. some are legal grows while others are not. I hear the trees being cut down for more sunlight and my neighbor selfishly leaves his greenhouse lights on creating lots of light pollution. I’m all for growing legally. It’s the greedy illegal selfish growers that pretend they are broke that make me upset. I sew clothes from all recycled materials but still have to pay taxes. Our street has changed a lot in the last year. The trees disappearin and toxic plant growing fertilizer going into our water is upsetting. Plus most of our water comes from the creek and it takes a lot of water for a commercial grow. Anything done in excess can be a problem. I choose to just grow what I need medically and not to be money hungry.

  • September 20, 2017 at 3:35 pm
    Permalink

    Boy, There are a lot of people here who don’t seem to have a clue how small a minority they are.
    I don’t know anyone who supports commercial Marijuana cultivation within Plumas County.

    And Shady Dave you blow me away. I wish I could post links here but according to the state of California ,there are somewhere north of 50,000 illegal Marijuana grow operations within the state. California’s best hope is that 16% of those growers will become legal.

    That leaves 84% of California’s growers who will continue selling what you call “untested
    powder mold infested chemical drenched weed to grandma, grandpa, cancer patients, and high school kids without paying taxes!” And remember, California also produces somewhere between nine and 12 time more pot than it consumes. Legal growers cannot export.. A pounds of buds can already be had in Quincy for a mere $1,000. The big bucks are in shipping it off to other states so why in the world would anyone go legal??

    The reality? Most of us feel the county has always got along just fine without commercial cultivation. And screw the revenue, we’d rather keep the pot holes in our roads than having pot being grown within our communities. We can take a good lesson from Siskiyou and Calaveras Counties who chose the wrong path and are now doing the big back pedal.

    Keep your six plants in the back yard, nobody really cares. As someone mentioned above with a little love and care those plants can produce five pounds each. That works out to 480 ounces. Enough to smoke almost an ounce and a half per day. That should be plenty to keep most disfunctional people from functioning don’t you think?

    Tess

    • September 21, 2017 at 11:35 am
      Permalink

      I don’t agree with commercial cannabis on a personal level, I have seen people take it too far and get greedy, it bothers me when people do things without regard to their neighbors and community.

      I grow my six plants, don’t sell(I have no profit motive) and have zero desire to buy commercial cannabis, however not everyone can grow their own, most people in the state don’t even have adequate space, or don’t have the skills, it would be naive to think that everyone can or will simply grow their own. So there will always be people who will be buying cannabis, should they buy it from a drug cartel, or a legal, regulated tax paying business? If I needed to, I would prefer to purchase legally(of course), I don’t want to feel like a criminal or support criminal organizations. would you rather go to Safeway to buy beer or meet some scary guy who also sells meth in some back alley?

      Most people would prefer to buy through legal channels every time(wouldn’t you?), this is why Cannabis producers would choose to grow legally despite the extra hoops they have to jump through, because consumers don’t want to be criminals if given the choice.
      I don’t like commercial cannabis because I don’t need it, but you can’t ignore the fact that people will be buying cannabis, most would prefer to do so legally and that will take up a(significant) portion of the market that would otherwise be taken up by drug cartels.
      Tax money that we would receive is not just about filling “pot holes in our roads”, all Counties that choose to legalize commercial grows will receive funding for the Bureau of Marijuana Control and law enforcement, which would take pressure off of local law enforcement, reduce crime related to cannabis production and allowing them to go after illegal grows(among other things). If we don’t legalize commercial grows we don’t receive these funds, Plumas county will be(is) a large county with lots of remote forest, limited law enforcement, limited funding and a black market that enjoys nearly 100% of the market with virtually no competition. It’s a no brainer, you don’t have to like commercial marijuana(I don’t), you just have to think about it objectively.

      • September 22, 2017 at 8:32 am
        Permalink

        HeartofPlumas

        I think you’re living in fantasy land. California is only expecting 16% of all growers to go legal and Mendocino County (this old birds previous stomp) is now only expecting 11% of their growers to go legit.

        That adds up to well under 20% of the revenue expected.

        I feel if it was all peaches and cream Sheriff Hagwood would be all over this and lending his full support. Obviously he is not. Maybe you should ask yourself why?

        Tess

        • September 22, 2017 at 1:15 pm
          Permalink

          If California is producing 12 times as much cannabis as we consume(as you mentioned), then we only need 1/12 of what is being produced now, 1/12 is 8.333%, if 16%(4/25) of the growers opt in, we should have no problem producing 8.3% of what currently being produced, even the 11% you quoted for Mendo is more than enough.
          Perhaps Sheriff Hagwood is waiting to see what the will of the people is, maybe he is against it, maybe he’s not, I don’t know, great guy though.

  • September 20, 2017 at 8:21 pm
    Permalink

    I think I speak for everyone here when I say I’d like to see a lot more medical meth produced here. Make sure it’s the kind with the natural pure organic acetone and lithium. It’s important all safety regulations are followed.

  • September 21, 2017 at 11:44 am
    Permalink

    Also as was mentioned California is producing far more than is needed right now, which means it’s a bubble and it’s going to burst, so for folks who feel like they are seeing too many grows right now that’s because you are, give it a few years most will fail and the market will reach an equilibrium, or in other words we may continue to see an increase in the number of grows for a little while, but that number is sure to go down over time. We’re not going to turn into Humbolt county, we couldn’t even if we wanted to, there are only so many consumers in California.

  • September 22, 2017 at 5:38 am
    Permalink

    Yes the bubble will burst. In fact it’s scheduled. When voters passed prop. 64 it seems many did not notice that in five years the whole dynamic changes when large investment corps., tobacco, liquor and agribusiness can start growing massive quantities of Marijuana in California. It was obvious as all one had to do is follow the money. Proposition 64 cost tens of millions to get the initiative to pass and those bucks came from large investors intent on starting massive Marijuana grows and reaping the profits. It’s sure wasn’t ma and pa with forty plants out behind the barn paying for legalization!

    What has been a staple California cottage industry for the past 40-50 years will largely cease to exist. Prop. 64 was the nail in the coffin. Seriously.. Do any of our local growers truly think they can compete with companies who have the resources to grow thousands of acres of pot in the valley? The financial impacts to many northern counties will be devastating.

    2023 is the date to mark on your calendar. It’s all the more reason for me to hope our Board of Supervisors has the ability to not only see what’s on the table today, but also have the ability to see what is in the near future.

    Tess

  • September 22, 2017 at 3:16 pm
    Permalink

    Yes, I’m aware of that date and it concerns me too, it is my hope that the BOS will limit the size of grows and add a residency clause or a different tax rate for investors from outside of Plumas county.
    I dislike corporatization intensely, however far to many peoples lives have been destroyed in the war against drugs, law enforcement clearly is not winning, the only people winning are cartels. It would be harder for farmers economically, that is genuinely unfortunate, I know good people who will be effected, but on the other hand, no one is going to be busting down their door, in swat gear, pointing guns at them, either.
    Legalization is the only way to protect the consumer, for every nine or ten honest growers(“ma and pa”) there is at least one who is willing to sell you anything. Before prop 215, I bought what was available, often times it was moldy, I’ve found pieces of tarp, toenails, even worse, this is unexceptable from a public safety standpoint.
    Just as with food, or any other commodity, the vast majority of people will probably be happy buying cheap, mass produced product grown by big corporate farms, that is unfortunate but it’s human nature. Right now most of them are buying from cartels, you pick which is worse. But also as with food there will always be those who seek out a product that has been grown on small farms by folks who care about what they’re doing and are happy paying more for it, just like there are folks who seek out organic, local, non-GMO food. There is a natural food store in most cities, that is a proven formula, there will be the same niche in the cannabis market. So if you you’re a ma and pa or cottage industry and you can produce something special that stands out, I believe(hope) you’ll be fine. Just as there is a market for food, furniture, art, whatever, there will exist farmers who specialize in small volume, high quality product.
    It’s been a sellers market for a long time(since prohibition), I think the consumers should have the right to make an informed choice, when was the last time you heard someone talking about how much better or safer alcohol was during prohibition?
    Honestly, you sound like a smart person and I think we probably agree on more things than you think.

  • September 23, 2017 at 9:16 am
    Permalink

    I see that now in Mendocino county. They are using the term “Mountain Crafted.” It is a niche market indeed. Sorta like those who fill the fridge with Bud Light and those who stick to the finer more expensive microbrews. Doesn’t seem to be working that well. My friends in Willits are telling me that pounds of bud this season are going for as little as $500 locally. In fact, I’m told, many growers are routing nearly their entire crop into the concentrate market as the market for buds has become so completely oversaturated.

    Home BHO. operations are now the number one cause of patient admissions to the UC. Davis Burn Center. To compensate for the saturated market, many growers have doubled their crops in an effort to make ends meet. In the long run, only making a bad market situation worse. The reality is the pot industry will stop at nothing to make money.

    Yes, Tess has sordid past and has been around the block many times but she can guarantee you would have never found toenail clippings or pieces of plastic tarp in her product! But her past also puts Tess in a unique position as she has been a part of and witnessed the evolution of Marijuana cultivation in California since the late 70’s. And my how things have changed.

    Mostly long gone are the small mom add pop operations with 20-30 plants grown to help pay the mortgage. Also gone are those peaceful times. Marijuana has become an major industry and to some degree an ugly one.

    A simple drive up the 101 should open your eyes. Is that what we want Plumas County to become?

    I have to say what concerns me most is the violence that is becoming prevalent. More and more growers are hiring “Trimagrants” Transient people who travel from all over the country to trim the Marijuana crop. These are often not the peaceful good ol’ boy local grower types. They bring with them greed, violence, their Heroin habits and generally trashy dirt bag lifestyle.

    Last year I had a friend in the Laytonville area who was murdered by his hired help. Married and a father of two, he was nearly decapitated and his crop stolen. Another local grower was nearly was beat to death with a baseball bat over his measley nine pounds which was stolen. I have to ask is that what we want to see here? Sadly this seems to be the evolution of the beast.

    So I pulled out my old voter pamplet to revisit where all the prop 64 revenue is supposed to go. It’s enlightening to say the least and I have to say our politicians are really something. Anyway, thought I’d share.

    Revenue from the two taxes will be deposited in a new California Marijuana Tax Fund. First, the revenue will be used to cover costs of administrating (we all know hundreds of new bureaucrats won’t come cheap) and enforcing the measure. Next, it will be distributed to drug research, treatment, and enforcement, including:

    $2 million per year to the UC San Diego Center for Medical Cannabis Research to study medical marijuana.

    $10 million per year for 11 years for public California universities to research and evaluate the implementation and impact of Proposition 64. Researchers would make policy change recommendations to the California Legislature and California governor.

    $3 million annually for five years to the Department of the California Highway Patrol for developing protocols to determine whether a vehicle driver is impaired due to marijuana consumption.

    $10 million, increasing each year by $10 million until settling at $50 million in 2022, for grants to local health departments and community-based nonprofits supporting “job placement, mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, system navigation services, (huh?) legal services to address barriers to reentry, (huh?) and linkages to medical care for communities disproportionately affected by past federal and state drug policies.”

    The remaining revenue will be distributed as follows:

    60 percent to youth programs, including drug education, prevention, and treatment.
    20 percent to prevent and alleviate environmental damage from illegal marijuana.
    20 percent to programs designed to reduce driving under the influence of marijuana and a grant program designed to reduce negative impacts on health or safety resulting from the proposition.

    It’s becoming clear that the states initial prediction of a billion in annual revenue is going to fall quite short. If only the now predicted 16% of growers go legit, that billion of expected revenue drops closer to 160 million and it’s obvious they’ve already spent it.

    The reason is simple. Few growers are deciding to go legit and I can see why. No doubt there are some who will not have the ability to grow their own and will purchase from a legal dispensary. Currently an 1/8 of an ounce of ‘good’ medical Marijuana is being sold for somewhere in the neighborhood of $40-45. Legal pot will carry with it steep taxes (which will be adjusted for inflation) so I’m betting the price per eighth will rise to closer to $50. If given the opportunity, most would elect to make their pot purchases from a friend or a friend of a friend for far less.

    So what is the penalty a commercial grower faces if he continue to grow (and sell) outside the law?

    Well, under prop. 64 its now a misdemeanor. One can be sentenced to a max. of six months in jail and/or a $500 or both. Fine. We all know our county jail is already packed so most likely one would end up losing the $500 and at worst, spend a weekend or two raking leaves at the fairgrounds. It is plain to see why so few growers have decided to enter the legal market.

    If Tess were in a position to decide if she wanted to grow legal or illegal it’s clear she would decide to stay illegal. There’s a big market back East. “To say that we’re going to produce only the amount of cannabis in California, in our counties, in our cities to meet the (local need) … is absolutely ludicrous and preposterous.

    I strongly support a person’s right to legally use the plant, but I do not believe the county will ever recover if illegal grows get any more of a foothold. There are a lot of fast balls coming at us, like methamphetamine and heroin, but illegal pot is the one that’s really gotten out of control lately. We’ve got a wonderful thing going here in Plumas. It’s clearly my hope that our Board of Supervisors decides to continue this way of life so many of us truly enjoy.

    Tess

  • September 23, 2017 at 2:33 pm
    Permalink

    Ah, exactly as I suspected, your motive has less to do with public safety and more to do with profit margins for illegal grows. That’s fine, I know many illegal growers who are great people, but you may want examine your motivation a little more closely before you try to convince the general public that it is in their best interest to help facilitate interstate drug trafficking; ” If Tess were in a position to decide if she wanted to grow legal or illegal it’s clear she would decide to stay illegal. There’s a big market back East”.
    Your argument about jail time and fines makes no sense considering the fact that under prop 64 offences that were previously a felony are know a misdemeanor and many things that had been misdemeanors are now just fines, so in fact less people will be serving less time in jail, reducing the pressure on local jails.
    I 100% agree with you about the current scene, it’s disgusting to me, I don’t want that to happen to Plumas county.
    So I guess my question then would be, how would you propose to remedy the situation, bearing in mind that commercial recreational is not available yet and won’t be until January 2018, so all of the things that you described have happened while it is still illegal to buy recreational cannabis? Why would regulating these activities be bad?

    To me the best way to stop violent crime is to increase the resources(i.e. funding) for marijuana related law enforcement so they can reduce crime related to the industry, while simultaneously devaluing the product. It’s just a plant, $500 per pound sounds about right to me, it was $3,700 and up previous to prop 215, so obviously the more legal it becomes the less expensive it is, the less value it has the less motive there is to commit violent crimes to acquire it.
    It’s hard to say that it’s a good thing for farmers to get less for their product, but on the other hand it’s a plant and you’re a farmer, how much do you get for a head of lettuce as opposed to a handful of marijuana? Is it really that bad? And legal growing will open the door to folks who might enjoy growing veggies, or cattle, alfalfa, or whatever and could use a little extra revenue but aren’t willing to loose their house or have their children taken away to do it. I think those folks deserve a seat at the table too.
    I’ve genuinely enjoyed the discussion, thank you. I’m out this my last post here.

    • September 23, 2017 at 6:56 pm
      Permalink

      HeartofPlumas

      I think you are missing my point. There are multiple faucets to this. Our legislators are largely to blame for a lot of this. We would not be looking at such a massive a market glut destined to only get worse if growers were allowed to export. It’s quite clear our lawmakers saw prop. 64 as their cash cow and they intended exploit it to the max. by keeping all Marijuana in the state so they could collect more and more taxes. If I were growing today it would be hard to accept that my efforts are now almost without value being limited to the California market. I’m sure most do not have east coast connections and even fewer would be willing to risk a couple years in Sing-Sing or being found dead in a alley winging it on their own. I am not advocating, nor have I ever participated in interstate trafficing but was only stating that I can clearly see why so few growers have decided to go legit. Myself, again, I am not in that position. What is the real value of a hand full of pot you ask? No doubt that dollar value is far less to the consumer than the person who accumulated years of living in a tent tending and guarding their crop. Trust me on that.

      Since I no longer grow commercially (and haven’t for years) I do not have any profit motive and it is indeed public safety that drives me to write my opinions here. What I’m saying is over the years I’ve watched the whole Marijuana industry fall into the sewer. Just look at Siskiyou county which has declared a state of emergency over their problems with cultivation. Sadly there is not a correlation between lower prices and less violence as we once thought would be the case and you seem to believe. Plumas is a great place and sometime people just do not realize what they had until its gone

      The fact that the state still doesn’t have recreational marijuana is a fault of the state. Nevada was able to pull off their legal markets in less than seven months after their November 8th election and I’m not certain that even after 13 months California will have their ducks in a row. I sure wouldn’t hold your breath on that one..

      Yes, back in the day cultivation was a felony but realistically there were darn few felony convictions. Most growers would simply walk away from the crop if a helicopter landed nearby feeling it was far better to lose the years crop and keep their freedom. Those very few who actually managed to get arrested usually ended up pleading guilty to misdemeanor possession. The Sheriff was out after your plants not to clog up the courts. (Greenhouses back in my day were very rare for the simple reason it was almost impossible to walk away from one.) To me, nowadays, a mere $500 fine would be simply the cost of doing business in that field and I do not see anywhere within the prop 64 legislation that a grower would lose his crop as an illegal grower.

      Adding law enforcement funding sounds like a great idea IF the funding made it this far down the pipeline. In Plumas in the past, eradication efforts were primarily focused and conducted on public lands with the Forest Service providing most of the funding and grants from the DOJ. providing the balance. I gave the figures on where the state hopes to spend their cut. California was counting on a billion dollars of new revenue the first year. As the state now expects only 16% of the growers go legal that money pot could easily drop to under 200 million. Out of 56 counties in the state and most of that money already earmarked for other purposes, what do you suppose Plumas counties cut for law enforcement will be? Enough for a burger and fries?

      I could probably talk for hours on this topic but I won’t. I’ll close by simply saying I stand firm in my belief that more harm than good will be the result if our BOS. approves commercial cultivation within the county and I also wonder just how badly you want to wait and see.

      It has been a fun discussion.

      Kind regards,

      Tess

Comments are closed.