Marijuana Ordinance Utility/Criteria

September 2014
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Marijuana Ordinance Utility/Criteria

11 September 2014

George Rebane

In the comment stream to ‘Medical Marijuana Cultivation Initiative’ I suggested that a better marijuana ordinance for Nevada County should be developed through a more systematic process starting with laying out what are the criteria that the provisions of such an ordinance should satisfy. A collection of such criteria are also known as a ‘utility function’ against which candidate ordinances or their several provisions can be evaluated. To be clear, in a reasonable development process such a utility function or set of criteria are agreed upon by the parties that will draft the ordinance BEFORE they start writing the individual provisions.

In the figure below I illustrate an example of such criteria for a marijuana ordinance (as I promised to do in the referenced comment stream). Readers may now comment on the adequacy of what I have offered and/or suggest modifications to it. I will do my best to incorporate all such reasonable changes, and then we can see what kind of consensus can be had at this level of developing a better ordinance. All should understand that if we can’t agree on what a good ordinance looks like, then we have no hope of agreeing on ANY fully fleshed out ordinance, and it’s back to politics as usual. Going through this procedure should be illuminating (even in its rejection).

Posted in Critical Thinking & Numeracy, Current Affairs, Nevada County

203 responses to “Marijuana Ordinance Utility/Criteria”

Walt

11 September 2014

It looks pretty good at face value, but I see a problem in #7
It may fly in the face of the state law. ” max profitability”
Maybe someone can clarify for me (in the state law) how much($$) is accepted
” just compensation” I do believe “non profit” still applies.
The one thing I would ad is mandatory “book keeping”
No matter what is drawn up at our county level, it still must comply with state law.

LikeLike
Bonnie McGuire

11 September 2014

Fish wrote, “…I don’t think there ought to be any criminal implications at all from growing the stuff. I don’t think you should need a prescription. I think you ought to be able to grow as much as you want as long as you aren’t creating a public nuisance and annoying the neighbors. Grow it on the back patio next to the tomatoes….or pull up your lawn and grow it there….I just don’t care! ” Sept 11
I tend to agree with him, and like him am not interested in using it. I see too many people who throw their lives in the trash so that they can walk around like mindless zombies. Cannabis is a medical herb that can help some people when they need it. I’ve always thought how simple it would be to grow what you might need in your own garden…just like any other natural medical herb. There are many. Years ago I remember a televisions herbalist visiting my parents organic garden and pointing out different weeds that were actually herbs with specific health n medical values. Surprise!
When you look at the big pharma television ads recommending a drug and then listing all the side effects you can’t help laugh at how upside down we are. I’ve known people who almost died because they (and their doctor) didn’t take the time to read the warning on their prescription. Sometimes there’s quite a list.
Then I read the discussions on cannabis, and do agree with those who say if everyone were free to grow it if they wanted it old t have much market value. Very true. This should be obvious watching the marketplace. First someone has to corner, or control the market. Then if they create a shortage it’s worth a lot of money to supply the demand for it. We have laws against those using prescribed drugs, and those using alcohol abusing others and endangering the lives of others while under the influence. Therefore it appears the real struggle seems to be “who gets control over everything” be it money, or the protection of our human rights designated in the Constitution.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2014

Walt 1155am – Good point Walt, I’d add record keeping as a sub-category of Grower Profitability. Without such accounting, there is no way to document profitability.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

11 September 2014

The Union sponsored debate on Measure S is cancelled. The parties could not agree on a location.
More here: http://www.theunion.com/news/12972488-113/debate-measure-location-nevada

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2014

RussS 233pm – I wonder whether Patty Smith would agree to the Rood venue if Sheriff Keith promised to keep the SWAT team out of sight in the back parking lot 😉

LikeLike
Russ Steele

11 September 2014

I found that having pre-agreed on definition of terms was vital to any productive discussion or analysis. The left and right, pro and con, the for and against, all use the same terms, but hold different meanings for those terms. We used to call it a data dictionary, and common set of agreed on definitions and conditions. You might need to expand your list of definitions.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2014

RussS 245pm – As I mentioned, the utility template I present is not complete, and most certainly the defined terms need to be expanded. I wanted to have readers start suggesting such terms, and perhaps also other categories and sub-categories as they participate in fashioning the template.

LikeLike
Don Bessee

11 September 2014

The fact is there was an agreement last week according to the email I got from the Union Publisher that said all parties have agreed. That was before his editorial announcing the event. The pot growers chickened out after agreeing. Have to wonder if this has anything to do with the ASA V.P. Brad Pecimer-Glasse being arrested for fraudulent recommendations, not to mention the 300 or so plants? Look for the official Press Release from NO on S that just went out. Seems the Union could not wait for it before running todays online article. The Union needs to stop saying measure S is about revisions to 2349. It is a totally different document with the obvious problems Mrs. Rebane pointed out. Somebody needs to remind the growers that they have it awfully good as things are. While they point to Colorado and other legalized states they do not notice that the rules for individual grows are massively more restrictive than Nevada Counties current ordinance.

LikeLike
Walt

11 September 2014

Reading the all of 5 FB posts on the arrest (bust) it’s the boilerplate sob story of “he is just growing medicine….” among other blather,, and rails against the Sherriff (no surprise there) doing his job because this guy was breaking the established codes six ways from Sunday. That part the person fails to mention or take into account.
How about actually showing some evidence that the existing law is “too strict”.
It sure doesn’t help when their “top dog” is caught growing with the same script in multiple locals. Not to mention WAYYY too many plants.
There is only one reason for that. (in my opinion)

LikeLike
Walt

11 September 2014

Look at the bright side. The new MRAP wasn’t used. ( as far as I can tell)

LikeLike
Brad

11 September 2014

“Somebody needs to remind the growers that they have it awfully good as things are.” I disagree with this statement. The laws are still overbearing. For example, say you wanted to be able to grow your own MMJ. How would you start? You need seeds, or cuttings (clones)/ rooted plants. Where are you going to get those?
Having a bunch 1-2 foot clones is not going to get anybody high so there is no public danger there. Clones or cuttings or sprouted seeds should be exempt from the number of plants or square footage requirements on properties. But, if you let your clones hang around the yard until they start budding – then, you need to include them in your calculations.

LikeLike
Walt

11 September 2014

After another close review of your proposition George, why is “recreational use”
mentioned? Or is this to be proposed on the state level at some point in time?

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2014

Walt 449pm – excellent question. I included ‘recreational use’ so that as we design a new ordinance we would consider that use of MJ since it will be the preponderant consumption of the weed no matter under what auspices it is grown. Having ‘recreational use’ as a sub-category allows us to decide how we want to represent it in the criteria for the new ordinance. For example, we could specify that the new ordinance would contain strictures to minimize (and criminalize?) recreational use, or on the other hand state that the ordinance should be moot on that use, or even provide for the non-intervention of recreational use. Remember, this is a utility function for evaluating candidate ordinance provisions, not the product ordinance.

LikeLike
Walt

11 September 2014

Thanks Doc.,, with that, I don’t believe we can do that at the county level.
No matter what the good intentions. This isn’t the State of Jefferson (yet).
And wouldn’t hold water in the court. ( If passed at the county level)
At least that’s how I see it from the bottom of my ditch looking up.

LikeLike
George Rebane

11 September 2014

Walt 511pm – OK Walt, then in your utility function under ‘recreational use’ you would specify that the candidate ordinance would be moot/silent on that form of consumption. Any candidate that started talking about recreational use would be downgraded with regard to that criterion.

LikeLike
Walt

11 September 2014

Doc.,, as far as any county ord. is concerned at this point in time. I can’t see the relevance until state law is amended or outright changed.
( BTW.. Your using too may 25 cent words for my limited edumication. I may need to visit Berkeley U of the net (wiki) to see what yur gittin at.)
What part am I not fully understanding? ( gotta dumb it down a little…thanks)

LikeLike
James Smith

11 September 2014

Don, Don, Don……
It’s time to come back to reality as the ASA had a meeting scheduled for that evening to distribute the 3-4″ tall little plants to cancer members in our community.
As to your other claims, well we know exactly what your reputation is and just how often you validate this info into our community.
Why don’t you tell us exactly how you became to live in our community?
How the International Banking Career going as you claimed in the Alta Sierra newspaper? Too bad you couldn’t keep that job cashing checks at Household finance for more than a couple weeks…..
You shouldn’t talk about integrity Don, as that is certainly something that you are lacking.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

12 September 2014

RE: Don Besse 3:37
What Don failed to mention in his post is that that there was a considerable effort to find a neutral venue that had good TV and Radio access and also could provide more comfortable seating since this event would surely overflow the Supervisors Chambers. I led the effort and secured the use of the Historic Nevada Theatre in downtown Nevada City for the debate. The Nevada Theatre Commission even waived rental fee’s wanting to support and provide greater community access for this important public forum. However all did not go well with that proposal as it was rejected by Sheriff Royal and Don Besse for three reasons, parking, lack of time to publicize the event change and, in Sheriff Royals opinion; the likelihood of a biased attendance.
Parking is not an issue since it’s a Tuesday evening at 6PM, and there was plenty of time (2 weeks) to publicize the change and the Theatre would provide twice the seating therefore giving access to a greater number of our residents by not having to force them to stand in the back of the Supervisors Chambers or huddle in the lobby which we have seen many times in the past during controversial meetings.
The bottom line is that our Nevada Theatre, a historical treasure and venue for hundreds of events in our recent history and located in the County Seat was rejected as a suitable venue by the Sheriff and others in the no on “s” campaign.
I wish to express my thanks to the Nevada Theatre Commission for their willingness to providing free public access for this vital public dialogue.

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

What’s with the sales pitch of the Nevada theater Paul? Tourists are not coming to see the “weed war”. You failed to mention that the current “culture” considers it a trophy for their calculated demise of the “culture” that built it. ( a little “historical” fact.)
Why not the Rood Center? That’s were rules and reg.s of the county are debated. Funny how us miners didn’t demand we hold the hearings on “home turf”.
And just what’s wrong with a little “police presents”? Too many attendees may have warrants?
” County business” should be held on public county property.

LikeLike
Brad

12 September 2014

I vote Western Gateway Park. Work to build a coalition of Jeffersonian libertarians and ASA supporters.

LikeLike
fish

12 September 2014

I vote Western Gateway Park. Work to build a coalition of Jeffersonian libertarians and ASA supporters.
You probably want to check with jeffy….I think he is involved with venue scheduling these days!

LikeLike
Paul Emery

12 September 2014

Walt
As I stated above the Rood Center is too small

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 September 2014

First, I invite your kind attention to the 12sep14 update of ‘While Waiting …’
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/09/while-waiting-for-a-backbone.html
Re the Measure S debate venue. I do understand PaulE’s 804am point that Rood will be too small for the anticipated crowd. And since this would be a privately sponsored debate (not a govt legislative hearing or action), it doesn’t need to be held in the BoS chambers. I am puzzled why a larger venue like the Nevada Theater would not serve all interests.

LikeLike
Don Bessee

12 September 2014

The fact is still the fact. The grange was never accepted, not the first time when the ASA asked the Drug Free Coalition to come to their town hall or when the Union first asked me to put a team together. It was primarily rejected because of the way the so called non-profit candidate forum was run by Pattie Smith during the primary. We immediately searched for a better venue and then agreed to the format once the Rood Center was confirmed on the Monday before the Unions announcement. The email chain is clear that an agreement was in place then reneged on. The Rood Center is where the League of Woman’s Voters does its candidate debates. So if its good enough for US Congress or Judges they why not for the ASA? I would submit that it had more to do with a desire to have an advantage. The Rood Center is way more handicap accessible and has flat topography for parking. Unlike Nevada City. It seems that the ASA should be more concerned with the access for all those ‘patients’ they claim to represent. Lets be honest the growers do not listen to the ASA, they do what the hell they want in pursuit of profit. Plain and simple. They are happy to have the ASA trot grandmotherly Patty out to parrot the same party line over and over. Just like this has nothing to do with kids and seizures or PTSD. There is NO shortage of weed and defeating measure S will not change that. The county produces so much product that it is shipped all over the country. Its all a smoke and mirrors campaign to confuse the issues, its a Land Use issue. In every State that has expanded mmj or legalization since 215 they have very strict structures unlike our current ordinance 2349.The ASA lump RA zones in with AG zones. RA is a residential use. Alta Sierra Ranchos as well as LOP Ranchos among other parts of the County would be open for giant commercial grows under measure S. That is not compatible with Residential areas. No Commercial activity in Residential zones period. Property values matter to the Residential area property owners. You can not make your profit off the back of your neighbors values and peaceful use.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

12 September 2014

Don
The”fact” is that The Union and KVMR were sponsoring the debate and, upon finding out that the Nevada Theatre Commission was willing to donate use of the Theatre for the debate decided to schedule the event there instead of the Supes Chambers. It would be a more neutral location but most of all offer twice the seating which will be necessary to accommodate the huge interest. Pro “s” said yes, the Sheriff said no. Parking and handicap access was not a problem.
There have been many debates over the years in larger venues because of the anticipated crowd. The Tea Party candidates debate for example have always used the Grass Valley Vets because the capacity far exceeds the Rood Building. I have been covering election debates for nearly 20 years and never has a venue been rejected. The wishes of the hosts of the event, in this case KVMR and the Union have always been honored.
The rest of what you say in your 11:06 is campaigning so I have no comment.

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

The fact the “pro” S side refuses to address the or even try to justify the huge profits. Here or anywhere else. the only claim ” It’s good for local shops” just doesn’t cut it. Not a peep on county’s “cut” (taxation).
There is now way in hell one person can consume the product of the current “maximum” of “harvestable product”. Be it smoked or otherwise.
The illegal profits MUST be fully addressed.
An above board grower should have no issue “registering” their grow with the County.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

12 September 2014

Walt
Registering of growers was attempted by Mendocino County but the Feds demanded and received the names of the growers from the County and used the list to make federal arrests. We have some detail in our Constitution that forbids self incrimination.

LikeLike
James Smith

12 September 2014

Paul, that’s the same reason why Nevada Counties notarized letter stipulation is not lawful, and it should be handled as per the rental agreement, which is lawful.
Walt, if you actually knew the law on these issues, you might not continue to make so many outrageous comments, as it’s pretty obvious that your pretty ignorant in this area….

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

Like I said before Paul, if you don’t want to be able to tell the “good” growers from the bad,, don’t gripe when the cops come knocking.
Then there was this
“Ogden memo” — a missive from Deputy Attorney General David Ogden telling federal law enforcers that they should not focus federal resources “on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”
Just maybe all those busts you speak of were out of compliance.
Like another “Paul” said.. “Now for the REST of the story”.
If you play by the rules, you have nothing to worry about.
Now about those huge profits…. Dispensaries apparently have the “non profit clause”. Now back up your “just compensation” excuse.

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

Mr. Smith. It’s been well publicized that the MJ industry is what’s keeping the county business afloat. ” #1 cash crop”.
If I’m SO off base, start spelling it out.
I’m on record as being an EX-user of MMJ. ( for many years for a back injury, with card in hand)

LikeLike
Paul Emery

12 September 2014

Walt
Medical cultivators in Mendocino were playing by the rules of the County when the registered and paid fee’s but were trumped by the Feds who subpoenaed the records and used them to make busts . That’s why growers are concerned about official notifications to Nevada County.
“The Board of Supervisors directed that the records be provided to the federal grand jury as requested by the subpoenas,” he wrote in a news release.
The move follows a year of legal wrangling over efforts by federal prosecutors to get their hands on paperwork from the program, which was scrapped in January 2012 under threat of a federal lawsuit after less than two years in operation. ”
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2221120-181/mendocino-county-to-turn-over

LikeLike
James Smith

12 September 2014

Again Walt, you seem to know nothing and because you have a card it doesn’t make you any smarter in either of these areas……
Based upon your comment, I have a NRA card, so I should have a PhD in gun ownership and the laws that surround them, right?
I bet that George Zimmerman was a genius based upon this thought process…

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

Well Paul, your getting a good taste of the bait and switch of the “O” and Co. administration. You can’t say you were never warned.
And the latest publicized bust, was in “compliance”? LOL!!! ( lets hear bout that raw deal)
As for Smith, the typical deflection. No facts what so ever. I have been born at night, but not last night.
I have grown plenty, and well within the regulations. ( and not sold to others for a quick buck.) I had an EX inlaw who grew under the guise of MMJ. Then got busted smuggling the “extra” on the other side of the country.
I know plenty about what I’m talking about.
Now some hard facts from your side of the bamboo fence.
Justify the big profits that you know damned well exist.

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

Love it… The Pro “S” want a public discussion, yet can’t answer one basic legitimate question right here. outrageous untaxed profits.
That gets nothing but crickets, yet the demand is to relax growing regs. even more. without any oversight of producing a drug.
Like Don said. It’s all about the money.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

12 September 2014

County CEO Letter:
On September 23, 2014, the Opposition to Measure S Panel will be available to answer question for the public regarding the dramatic changes that Measure S, if passed, will have on our community. The Q&A session will be held in the Nevada County Board of Supervisors Chambers at 950 Maidu Avenue in Nevada City, from 6 – 8 PM.

LikeLike
Don Bessee

12 September 2014

Mr Emery, You were never part of the email chain I had with the Union. We had an agreement for the Rood Center and Pattie Smith backed out, or should I say the real ASA bosses they like to keep from the public as the real face of the ASA backed out. You can try and revise history but the email chain tells the story. They backed out and you offered an alternate site after the fact. Now Pattie Smith in on the Union website saying the Sheriff backed out the day her VP was busted with 300 plants and fraudulent documents, more revisionist history. We will have 3 chairs with name plates for Munkelt, Smith and Devlin as agreed, their choice to fail to keep an agreement. As someone pointed out today, why am I surprised they did not keep their agreement when they don’t want to follow any rules anyway. I would observe that the ASA’s VP would still be massively out of compliance if measure S was in effect today. If it were really about patients Brad Glass would have had legal recommendations from the poor oppressed patients, right? Makes the point its all about PROFITS NOT PATIENTS rather eloquently.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

12 September 2014

Don
Pattie Smith and the No on S group were not the producers of the event, KVMR and The Union were. As producers of the event we changed the Event to the Nevada Theatre, once it became available, for reasons I will not state again. Your side refused to participate for reasons stated . It was our prerogative where the event was to be held not yours or Patti Smiths. The event at the Rood Center is your own.
I think it’s pretty strange that your side refused to be at the Historic Nevada Theatre, a dearly beloved historic venue in Nevada City that offered so much more than the Supes Chamber and was a far superior venue in the opinion of the producers of the event.
In short. it was never your event. It’s my understanding that ASA would have gone to the Rood Center if it was the only option but it was not. The Nevada Theatre, due to the generosity of the Commission, donated their space for public benefit which you declined to attend.

LikeLike
Patricia Smith

12 September 2014

Don Bessee speaks with a forked tongue. I have the email chain too and I have three separate emails that say different locations were approved at different times. I asked if the Nevada Theater was “set in stone” and was assured that it was. Sheriff Royal backed out of that venue immediately after we came to terms. I initially didn’t want to move from the Rood Center so groups would have a place to table, but I agreed to move to the Nevada Theater after Paul and Jim assured me that it was a better venue to hold the anticipated crowd. So over the course of debate venue discussions, ASA agreed to debate at the Banner Grange, the Miner’s Foundry, the Rood Center (initially), and the Nevada Theater. Sheriff Royal will only debate at the Rood Center. Why?
We will be holding a Town Hall Forum and invite people from both sides of the issue to come ask questions. You can bet our side will not get the same respect at the Rood Center! If you are interested in learning the facts, please plan on joining us on Tuesday, September 23, 6:00pm at the Nevada Theater. But if you want to attend a pep rally, go to the Rood Center. Some people want to be educated, while others are content to remain ignorant.
I did not have anything to do with the candidates forum at the Banner Grange other than to provide the facility. (I was the BG rental manager at the time. I have since resigned to have more time to campaign on Measure S.)
I think it would behoove everyone to resist passing judgment on Brad. I thought people were innocent in this country until PROVEN guilty. After speaking with Brad’s attorney, I am convinced that he will be exonerated and possibly have a lawsuit against the county for violating his rights.
Brad was roughed up pretty good for having the audacity to ask for a search warrant. (This was his obstruction of justice charge) His big toe nail was ripped from his foot, he suffered multiple scraps and cuts and his clothes were torn. This is the third incidence I have heard of in the last month were the Sheriff’s department has invaded someone’s home without showing a warrant. This should alarm the hell out you law & order types.
Also, who are the real faces of ASA that we keep from the public?

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

Nice little back and forth, ” come to our forum to questions answered” etc. ect.
yet one or two of the “big chesses” right here, won’t even answer one BIG relevant question RIGHT HERE.
How bout it Ms. Smith? Care to address the “profit problem”?

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

It appears that profit is the true motive behind “S”, and “patient access” is purely a cover story. Not one of you will confront the issue.
Laws and regulations are for others to follow… Right? Only idiots pay taxes.. Right?
If you want to make a buck, get a job, and make it honestly.
Don’t “Colorado” Nevada County.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

12 September 2014

Ok, I agree with Don that it is a bad mistake to lump R/A with A zoning. With A zoning, agriculture is the primary use and residential is of secondary importance/use. AR is equal importance to agricultural use and residential use. A/R is residential being the primary use with agricultural secondary, which is why many A/R zones forbid cattle, etc, and smelly animal poop. All depends on the primary or secondary use of a residence.
What I would like to know from y’all out there (and looking at Dr. Rebane’s Utility/Criteria), can anybody agree what is a legal marijuana grow and conversely, what constitutes illegal marihuana plant cultivation.
Looking ahead down the road when growing marihuana cigarettes for recreational purposes ( getting high, stoned, feeling small) becomes legal, do we want possession of more than an ounce illegal, as in Washington State and Colorada?

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

12 September 2014

Ooooppppssss, RA zoning gives residential use the primary purpose, ag secondary purpose. AR splits the importance of use equally….meant to say don’t put RA in the same group as A or even AR. I forgive y’all for reading what I wrote, not what I meant because that is the kind of guy I am. You have been cleansed.

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

Well now. Warren Buffet has heard your crys.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-12/buffett-s-berkshire-has-unit-that-helps-marijuana-growers.html
Now he wants a piece of the action.

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

Something new is afoot. A new way to steal crops?? ( just a guess)
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/09/12/mysterious-men-dropping-from-helicopters-to-chop-down-norcal-marijuana-grows-mendocino-county-lear-asset-management/

LikeLike
Don Bessee

12 September 2014

Cry me a river Pattie. James Smith = Brad Pecimer Glasse = we know the names. Your so called Non Profit Candidate Forum at the Grange should have been called the Friends of Fran Cole. You distributed a video with an Embedded Commercial for Fran Cole, I have a copy. You,Brad Pecimer Glasse, McCloud and Labelle-Montiero were running the show. An FPPC Violation. Hank Westons constituents were wise enough to crush your buddy. Be reminded that much of your crew has a court order behind their Alta Sierra Bull Shit. Why don’t you tell us why you need out of area UFCW Local 8, people from Oakland and out of State Interests to sell your propaganda Madam President? If there are really 3 percent of the population in Nevada County who have a REAL recommendation can you help us understand why your boss Brad had 300 plants without real recommendations? Please tell us why our Patients have to do without their ‘medicine’ so your crew can sell to Oakland and so on out of the County? Its Profits Madam President, Not Patients. You obviously never were sincere with your agreement to debate. Your 3 Chairs will be there. You can bring all the motorized wheel chairs you want, the Rood Center is very disabled friendly.

LikeLike
Walt

12 September 2014

3%? That’s it? And everybody and their brother is growing “mmj” around here?
That sure explains why not one has the ….guts to answer my inquiry about
profits. Illegal enterprise is the name of the game. ( and all tax free)
Asset forfeiture should be employed, and well deserved. The MMJ law was billed as “non profit” to the voters of the state to reduce the cost to “the patients”
What a load of crap. Well someone’s “skimmed” goods got busted headed East near Truckee. I hope the “mule” sings.
Can you say,,, Blood money? How many gangs are good customers up here?

LikeLike
Walt

13 September 2014

According to KNCO,, the IRS will be saying “hello”.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

13 September 2014

Don
If indeed ASA decided to fill the “empty chairs” you will be providing on Sept 23rd who would be the moderator and what would the format be. Also who would be the producer of the debate?

LikeLike
Keen Observer

13 September 2014

Walt,
I agree that it is time to call a spade a spade, and a heart a heart. Patricia Smith is correct in saying that there are legitimate MMJ patients within the county, but it is certainly hard to declare that a majority of growers do not generate some kind of profit, be it small or large. I am aware of many local growers, all of whom supply “some” of their crop for medicinal purposes, the rest supports the household economy. With that being said, they all somberly follow a code of “never get too large,” as the larger grows tend to fall into the crosshairs of the heavy hand of the Federal Government.
I get a real kick out of the antiquated viewpoints of the Don Bessee types, whom are direct beneficiaries of the once large military industrial complex that allowed his generation to flourish in a false sense of economic security. Let’s face the facts, MMJ (whether medicinal or recreational) generates wealth in our small community, a community that is plagued with a dearth of jobs that actually provide a decent quality of life. However, this problem does not apply to those whom happily enjoy the last remains of government and private corporation pensions; the last remnants of a generation whom have no concept of the modern economy and are sheltered from the difficulties of living and raising a family in a society that has detrimentally become ever more progressive and “eco-friendly.”
Ask around Don, retail businesses in Nevada County have a unique and small boom in Oct. and early Nov. This boom is the envy of large chain store retailers in other parts of the country, whom typically experience a decline in business prior to the Holiday Season.
Why not skirt around the issue and quit forcing MMJ growers to hide their profits. If we legalize MMJ, the patients benefit, our local economy benefits, the tax coffers benefit, and the additional household revenue might actually save some from having to put on a leash to the Federal Government through welfare benefits. Let’s face the facts, with local NGOs and Eco do-gooders destroying what used to be good jobs (timber, construction, mining, etc..), its high time (pun intended) we entertained some economic ideas to capitalize on the growing demand for MMJ, before we miss the boat. Perhaps then, our local LE could focus their limited resources on other drug offenders that actually harm the community (i.e. meth, heroine, etc..)

LikeLike
George Rebane

13 September 2014

KeenO 957am – You argue an interesting point – a little profitable larceny that is widely known and does no obvious harm should be overlooked by law enforcement agencies. My question then is – who makes the decision of when and when not to overlook? Is that something that is a wink-wink between the BoS and the sheriff, the sheriff and the state narco task force, the narcos and the fed’s DEA? Is that what is being done now?
It seems that under the current ordnance both the medical and recreational users have more than enough supply. Everyone is making sufficient money that “supports the household economy”, inter-state drug trade, etc, and even the cartels are happy. So why mess with something that works? (Unless, of course, local growers want to increase their profits above current levels. As some have pointed out above, the profitability aspect is something no S proponent wants to factor into this discussion.)
PS. You nailed your first use of ‘whom’, but subsequent uses of the word kind of fell off the wagon.

LikeLike