[the_ad_placement id=”banner-right-placement”]

[the_ad_placement id=”banner-left-placement”]

Citizens group revises cannabis ordinance

The Citizens Group for a Responsible Cannabis Ordinance has revised its draft ordinance for regulating marijuana activity in Plumas County. The group will submit its revised draft to the Plumas County Planning Department to replace an earlier version submitted last October.

While the group is still opposed to commercial cannabis activity in Plumas County, members have listened to input from county citizens who found CGRCO’s original draft ordinance unduly restrictive. Some of these citizens have wondered if the group wanted to restrict medical or recreational use.

“It has never been the intent of CGRCO to ban medical or recreational use of marijuana as granted under state law by Propositions 215 and 64,” said CGRCO member Dr. Jeff Kepple. “There are some who might believe that’s our objective. It is not.”

The revised CGRCO ordinance draft would allow for delivery of medical marijuana from dispensaries in other jurisdictions to patients who cannot or choose not to grow their own plants. This approach gives patients convenient access to their medicine while still prohibiting marijuana dispensaries in the county, an activity to which the group is opposed.

The ordinance also makes it easier for residents with smaller parcels to meet setback requirements from property lines by reducing the setback distance. This allows residents to use their separate and enclosed structures to grow their six plants while maintaining an adequate buffer between their grows and their neighbors’ backyards.

“We realize that some residents may have special property conditions and/or financial situations that would make compliance with outdoor building and setback requirements difficult,” said CGRCO member Bill Martin. “Our objective is to ease some of the restrictions in our original draft ordinance, while still preserving our goal of keeping Plumas County a commercial cannabis-free jurisdiction.”

CGRCO maintains that commercial cannabis activity would unalterably change the character of Plumas County in ways that would compromise safety, children’s health and negatively affect the natural environment.

To read CGRCO’s complete revised ordinance draft and to review the group’s mission and goals, go to PlumasGrow.com.

21 thoughts on “Citizens group revises cannabis ordinance

  • Wow. You think an out of county delivery service will drive to Quincy to deliver $50 dollar orders? You guys are laughable at best.

    You don’t give a crap about the kids, if you did you’d ban booze, but it’s literally on every corner of this town.

  • Why would this group have any more input that the previous groups who have come up with ordinances? Are they elected officials?

    • No, just good friends, business partners, cronies ect ect…Not to mention this rag, which seems to push the ultra conservative website they have, pure reefermadness propaganda.

  • The people of Plumas County have already voted in favor of legalizing and regulating cannabis as a commercial business. The residents voted 5100-4600 in favor of allowing recreational cannabis. So why is there any debate about this subject and why would we allow a group of ultra conservatives outvoice the voting majority of the county?

  • “The people of Plumas County have already voted in favor of legalizing and regulating cannabis as a commercial business.” That’s a negative.

    We voted to be able to have a bag in our pocket and grow six plants without being hassled AND the chance for our county board of supervisors to develop a marijuana policy that reflected the wishes of our county’s residents.

    Where have you been?

  • “We voted to be able to have a bag in our pocket and grow six plants without being hassled”
    This group is still wants to hassle us about our six plants. To grow six plants outdoor requires a minimum setback of 50 feet from sides and rear property lines and 70 feet from front property lines. I would not be able to grow six plants outdoor under this ordinance, this requirement would take away rights that I’ve had for over two decades.

    “It has never been the intent of CGRCO to ban medical or recreational use of marijuana as granted under state law by Propositions 215 and 64,” said CGRCO member Dr. Jeff Kepple. “There are some who might believe that’s our objective. It is not.”
    Actions speak louder than words Dr. Kepple.

    • Not sure who you are and it would be nice if you used your name. Unfortunately it appears you haven’t read their proposal, it bans all outdoor growing go to the website and download the summary document. The first statement reads:

      Allows for the cultivation of up to six1 cannabis plants on any premises2, when all the
      following conditions are meet:
      a. Cultivation is more than 1,000 feet from schools, school bus stops, school
      evacuation sites, churches, parks, child care centers or youth-oriented facilities.
      b. Cultivation in not within a residence or any other structure used or intended for
      human occupancy.
      c. Cultivation is indoor in a secure detached accessory structure, meeting specific
      requirements and minimum setback from…

      • Jacque,
        your preaching to the choir, I vehemently oppose the CGRCO proposal. I’ve spoken several times to various members of the CGRCO, and I’ve expressed my displeasure at a BOS meeting.
        The CGRCO has just recently revised their ordinance to allow (with huge caveats) outdoor growing; https://plumasgrow.com/latest-ordinance-changes/ . These changes, nevertheless, would still result in many people (including myself) not being able to grow six plants outdoors; I feel this unacceptable, personal and medical rights should be left alone.
        The reason I don’t use my name, is because I don’t want my family confronted by anti-cannabis crusaders, my wife and kids shouldn’t have to field questions from strangers about my opinions on…

        • Cannabis.

  • Funny how some people only follow the law when it suits their paranoid agenda. Seems to me that these right-wing nut-jobs are sore losers. They are also too stupid to realize the economic benefits of commercial cannabis.

    • To be fair they are following the law, and while I disagree with these people, insulting them only shifts the conversation away from meaningful debate.
      It’s super easy to debate their views by simply doing research and using factual information.

      • I’m glad you have a heart. I have a pen in the shape of a sword. Most of these pearl clutchers who live in fear of everything have had their minds made up since 1962. No pleasentries will persuade them, no pleasentries will bring compromise. A new age is speaking and we are tired of the same old worn out illogical arguements to continue this prohibition. You can bring your facts but they will dismiss them faster than you could provid proof. You might as well be debating a tree stump.

        • Exactly. Facts mean nothing to these people.

          • Okay, you guys do you, and I’ll do me.

      • Prop 64 was a garbage proposal that should have never seen the light of day. It is a legislative/corporate grab and a very poorly written proposal indeed. All that aside, I grew up here, and I was hopeful that all the growers here would finally be able to contribute to the economy…even MORE than they already do. Ya know, tax revenue? But no, Plumas Co. once again shoots itself in the foot. There is no reasoning with these people, they made their minds up and pickled them. I get where you are coming from, cannabis saved my life decades ago, that’s why this is frustrating to see.

  • But this is where you live. Why pick on your neighbors who might feel differently about commercial cultivation? Your options are open so why not stop the whining and move along if your dreams don’t pan out? You’ll find your rainbow somewhere I’m certain.


    My East Quincy 77′ wide lot is too small as well. Same for most of my neighbors.

  • This idea of a delivery service adds insult to injury to medicinal users and it is presented as a “compromise”. Please. There is not one single dispensary within 75 miles of Quincy. This creates even more burden for people to get their medicine when they could grow their own or have a local grower (they are everywhere here) provide the product. People will now need to drive to Chico, Redding or, risking federal law, Reno. This proposal is hurting the county more than helping. Who will enforce these ordinances? Where is the budget for that? Once again, Plumas County get’s it bass-akwards.

    • ^ I completely agree.

  • You will never convince anyone on the CGRCO, a group led by someone who believes that his Imaginary Friend is against it and he and other self-selected people are the only ones who can speak on His behalf. As illustrated by Ben Carson, being a doctor doesn’t necessarily mean one is well-educated. It just means one has learned a trade.

    • Yes, I would say to this “good” doctor, “physician, heal thyself.” These people will never see reason and have NO business dictating public policy.

Comments are closed.

[the_ad_placement id=”banner-left-placement”]