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

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

Fear or compassion? Masking self-interest in our cannabis debate

Our pro-grow fellow residents keep encouraging us to overcome our fear of commercial cannabis for the good of Plumas County. They implore us to follow their lead and do what’s best for our community by embracing it. To this end, one pro-cannabis business voice offers a false dichotomy in his question: “Is the future of cannabis in Plumas County based on compassion or fear?”

Why A or B? Why not a responsible county ordinance that supports Prop. 64 and the common good?

Come now, fellow Plumas residents, they say — for the good of our county, fear not and embrace the future (with commercial cannabis activity). They implore us to trust them even asthey fear our Board of Supervisors will adopt an ordinance that limits their ability to profit from the Green Rush. They invite us to choose compassion over fear and support those who wish to follow their cannabis business dreams.

After all, it’s for our best.

The fearful-Plumas-resident-afraid-of-cannabis is a construct that works like this:

By assigning fear to those who disagree with them, they imply that we’re fearful because we’re ignorant. It’s nonsense and a nonstarter. We can disagree because we’re informed and unafraid to say NO to something that will harm our community and its people. How do we know commercial cannabis will harm Plumas? We have only to look (with open minds and with no purse strings attached) at counties that have already made the mistake of allowing it.

When we do, we’re confronted with these inescapable questions: Why make the same mistake? Why would any of us — on either side — think Plumas with commercial cannabis would fare better than Siskiyou or Calaveras? 

They believed the promises of prosperity, and now they’re fighting more illegal growers,more cartel activity and more environmental damage. How is it rational to think this wouldn’t happen in Plumas? Would it not be compassionate to spare our county and its people the ills commercial cannabis activity has brought to other California counties?

The false dichotomy of basing the future of cannabis in Plumas County on compassion OR fear hinges on this presupposition:Those who want commercial cannabis do so primarily out of compassion for medical marijuana patients. Yet, Prop. 64 allows patients to continue getting their medicine. So does the moratorium. Growers can still provide medical marijuana. And with six plants per patient, they can still harvest a surplus of product.

Whathave changed are profit margins. Growers can expect profits from selling their surplus to dispensaries to continue taking a hit. With Prop. 64’s tilt toward big cannabis and the coming glut of legal weed, this is inevitable and has little to do with fear or compassion.

Speaking of compassion, is this its epitome: providing patients with their16-24 ouncesof yearly medicine (from six plants) in order to make $12,000-24,000 per patient by selling the leftover 10-20 pounds (based on pre-Prop. 64 prices)?

Wouldn’t it be more compassionate to “donate” back a portion of profits to patients, so they can afford better health care? Wouldn’t this compassionate arrangement be the ultimate in beneficial collective cooperation and make for better care giving?

These are only questions, not accusations and are not based in fear or ignorance, but in a desire for honest discussion. Instead of positioning themselves as cornering the fear-free compassion market, perhaps pro-commercial cannabis voices could engage those who disagree with them without assigning bogus fears and implying ignorance.

Plumas growers and pro-cannabis business supporters: We understand your position on commercial cannabis in Plumas. We simply disagree fundamentally. But we do so not out of fear, but with compassion for our fellow residents and love for our county and community.

To make our thoughts and emotions regarding our cannabis issue crystal clear: We support Props. 64 and 215 and wish to accommodate recreational and medical marijuana use in a responsible cannabis ordinance. We do not wish to prevent patients from getting their medical marijuana and have revised our ordinance draft to allow its delivery.

We’re against commercial cannabis activity in Plumas County for reasons we present on plumasgrow.com. We do not fear cannabis or those who support its commercialization. We’re not ignorant nor do we lack compassion. To the contrary, our group is made up of smart, savvy, educated, honest, dedicated and compassionate Plumas residents who want only the best for our county and fellow citizens.

We who oppose commercial cannabis in our county are not the bad guys — your beef is with big cannabis and those who facilitate them legislatively. Please stop misrepresenting our hearts and minds regarding our county cannabis issue.

Lastly, let’s be more neighborly and give each other the benefit the doubt when it comes to fear and compassion.Rather than labeling one another with misplaced emotions, let’s base a civil and relevant discourse on honesty and ideas.

4 thoughts on “Fear or compassion? Masking self-interest in our cannabis debate

  • The delivery from out of county will never work, maybe over where lassen meets plumas, but im not sure they allow deliveries there either? Only folks who would spend large ammounts of money would be able to convince a out of county delivery service to drive up the canyon to get here. SO now your kinda discriminating against low income folks who can only afford 40 bucks of herb at a time…thats not very cool.

    Commercial cannabis, that term gets thrown around quite a bit..what does it mean? I bet there would not be more than a half dozen small to medium sized greenhouse operations in the county if it was allowed here, besides the regular backyard homegrowers that are here and will always be here. Not much compared to the bars in town eh?

    • Hi, Howard
      One of the cannabis ordinance initiatives defines commercial cannabis like the state does—the cultivation, manufacture, testing, distribution, transportation, event organization, and storage of cannabis. Prop. 64 seems to define it as anything beyond six plants per residence for recreational grows and excluding medical grows. The definitions above reflect our group’s understanding of commercial cannabis.

      We certainly have no intention of discriminating against low-income patients who can’t or don’t want to grow their own. We want to make sure they get their medicine. I’ve been researching a dispensary/distributor in the LA area that lists Quincy and the other Plumas cities and towns in its delivery area. I’m out of…

  • You asked and offered but didnt leave a contact so ill leave mine you or anyone, You want to talk, question, debate, or chat to a real grower? feel free to give me a shout [email protected] I am a plumas local

Comments are closed.

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