Click one of the flags below to view the full newspaper.

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 ( to register your support. We also have a Facebook page at

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

Click here to submit a letter to the editor about this post that will be published in our newspaper.