Home > Humboldt County, marijuana > Proposed Humboldt County pot regs stink

Proposed Humboldt County pot regs stink

[An email from Southern Humboldt’s Robert Sutherland is hitting local inboxes to warn of rank hypocrisy in the county’s draft marijuana ordinance.  Copied below in whole.]

Friends: I have finally had time to look at the proposed ordinance. It is BULLSHIT. It is an effort to insure we do not have a marijuana industry. But it is even worse. Sorry if your toes are in my way. Here is why it should be withdrawn entirely.

  1. No odor allowed. But do you remember the truly horrible odor that came for decades from the LP pulp mill? It made Eureka actually unlivable for many. What do you suppose the County did about it? Or suppose you have been to the Ferndale Valley recently. Why is “the Ferndale Dairyaire” such a well known joke? The Valley often reeks with the intense smell of cow shit, enormously worse than any marijuana. What do you suppose the County does about it? Do you get the drift here yet?
  2. Take diesel spills – banned here. A legitimate concern, yes. But at probably every single farm or ranch in Humboldt there is a diesel fuel tank sitting on spindly legs, and beneath the spigot there is a plume of diesel going down probably twenty feet. What does the County do about this? And consider that many pesticides that are used widely on forest lands require a diesel carrier. This means thousands of gallons of diesel are sprayed on Humboldt forest lands. What does the County say about this?
  3. Take water withdrawals – banned here. According to my information, there are vineyards in Mendocino County withdrawing huge amounts of riparian water with no permits. Why does the government do nothing? And what of the huge withdrawals by farming operations in Shively, ranches in Ferndale where the Salt River has been murdered, and French’s summer dam across the Mattole used to divert river water into his pasture? Why is this agriculture water treated so completely differently than that agriculture water? And what about effluent? – banned here. Why is livestock allowed to do enormous damage to the fish? In the Mattole, cows are encouraged to shit right in the river. What does the County say about this?  In each of the three above examples we continue to see not an effort to integrate an industry but a continuing attempt to punish and control hippies. This is not the “equal protections of law” but BULLSHIT – sucking up to the resentments and prejudice by ranchers, loggers, farmers, truckers, and cops against the industry of the “newcomers”. There is more.
  4. Your house is not up to code? You may not grow indoors, period. You bought your parcel directly or indirectly from Bob McKee? Apparently you cannot grow in or out, period, because you have to have what the County considers to be a “legal parcel”, and they do not like Mckee’s many many parcels. And can you bring your parcel up to their standards? No, as you will see once you read the “Fire Safe” regulations, the draconian rules designed to prevent anyone except the rich from living in California wildlands. I am not kidding. Nor exaggerating. This is in effect an effort to stamp out an industry and the people who live it.
  5. There is a lot in here that carries the same odor. For example, a landlord is given license to block you from exercising your 215 freedoms. Likewise, tying code enforcement to your ability to exercise your 215 rights is further illegal bullshit. And then there is the matter of forced compliance (55.1.4 ##1,2). The drafters seem to be unfamiliar with Article 1 Section 9 of the California Constitution. Why isn’t this an ex post facto law? And if not, what then is the rationale for allowing all those uses enumerated above, such as 1, 2, and 3? Hm.

This proposal is less a serious attempt to build a future than to appease the right-wing prejudices that have governed this County forever, and still do. In my opinion we are better off with NO ordinance than this one.

I admit the section on dispensaries seems much more carefully drafted and I offer no comment on that section, but here leave that to the folks involved more directly than I.

Other minor criticisms, but why bother? The drafters appear to have exercised bad faith. What a waste.

I want my rights to the equal protections of the law! Cut the Bullshit!

Robert Sutherland, The man who walks in the woods.
4 January 2011
Ettersburg, California

  1. anon1
    January 5, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Lots of pot being grown in buildings owned by Dan-co and others….Mini storage’s..owned by wealthy families in this community…They don’t want competition…This is some of the reasons the deck has been stacked the way it has been in the county and the city. Watch big business get all in, with this one..Its plain to see if they want to get rid of you for one reason or another, they will use one of these against you..There is almost no way to live up to these standards period.

  2. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 11:16 am

    I applaud your zero-bullshit take on the whole code/water/diesel hypocricy. When it comes to butchering the forests and dirtying everything up, marijuana growers aren’t even scapegoats…more like martyrs. Gonna take all of the blame for none of the real problem. Certain people who don’t feel like they’re committing any crime (non-growers) live in rural areas just the same, and with “nothing to hide” generally take the land much more for granted by way of clearcutting/permanent structures/establishing utilities (aka removing resources)/increasing population etc.

  3. Steak n Eggs
    January 5, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Random Guy, nice try but the impacts are real and clearly visible. The roads the growers use, particularily in the fall when the trimmers move in, are in deploreable condition. If these guys policed themselves then the County would not need to do it, but its not happening. I can name at least a dozen private roads in Southern Hum that are contributing tons of sediment to the Mattole and South Fork. A bunch of fucking yahoos in their jacked up trucks spinning out daily. Real cool man. If some of the growers cannot comply, then get out of the business and let someone with some smarts and environmental ethics do the growing.

  4. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Steak n’ Eggs…there are at least as many (I say way more) non-growers joyriding rural roads than growers. Stop scapegoating and deal with it.

  5. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 11:54 am

    …in other words…sign yourself up for ordinance training if common sense doesn’t rule your world. There are already laws to protect the land, water rights, etc. than to need more biased beaurocracy.

  6. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Growers don’t want weed legalized and now they don’t want strict regulations. Huh… sounds like the oil companies who don’t want restrictions on where they can drill or any sort of price controls. As a life-long resident, I’m tired of all the uneducated, pieces of trash moving up here, growing dope, talking bad about “corporations,” and then living in the most greedy and environmentally unfriendly ways possible.
    Be happy your greed and the ignorance of the rest of the state kept weed illegal so you can still get your 2 grand per pound and scrap together a living.

  7. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    More conspiracy bullshit, what nonsense. The more pot use there is, the worse society becomes. Pot is for losers.

  8. Captain Obvious
    January 5, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    To summarize:

    1. We don’t want your air pollution.

    2. We don’t want your soil pollution.

    3. Pay for the water you use.

    4. Don’t put a fire hazard in our neighborhoods.

    Excuse us if we don’t give a damn that the rich kids are whining about playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

  9. tra
    January 5, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    @ Captain Obvious:

    I think the issue is that this does not amount to “playing by the same rules as the rest of us,” it’s a setting a higher standard for pot farmers than for any other kind of farmer. Now maybe that’s what we want to do, or maybe not, but let’s at least be honest about what is being proposed.

  10. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    thank you captain obvious

  11. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    same standards. do the other farmers farm in our neighborhoods? do they bring in violence and crime?

  12. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    The current kings and queens of this county look down on growers and with good reason. They have to vilify them to keep them away from their right to wealth. Weed is the new timber. No one in the ruling class wants commoners to have any political pull or power… MONEY.
    It is time to out those hypocrites who add to their wealth with ‘hidden’ indoor and outdoor grows.
    City council members who grow? oh yes. Time to make their names and hobbies known.

  13. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    The basic point of this article is that some people- especially traditional farmers- do fucked up things to the land, so why not let the new kids coming up from so-cal and everywhere else do fucked up stuff when they grow weed. Great point! Really well thought out.

  14. January 5, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Spare us from the Allison Jackson’esque “violence in the neighborhoods” scare tactics. Unless you’re willing to compare alcohol related violence?in that case let’s start closing bars down at the least

  15. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    All marijuana politics are distractions from politics that matter. Figure it out, people. What the fuck is “America” all about if not less bullshit. The same people who shake their head in disappointment that contracts, disclaimers and all fine print in general is ten times longer than it was 30 years ago…but at the same time you want more and more nitpicky laws and ordinances and regulatory paperwork. MO-RANZ.

  16. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    What part of “there are already laws in place” do some of you not understand? I can’t divert a creek to water my tomato garden either. Or just up and doze a new road so I can cut down some more trees for firewood. This is an obvious case of alterior motives…you’re slapping yourself in the face to support this kind of new “regulation”. It’s a pointless waste of everybody’s time and money.

  17. tra
    January 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    @ 12:24:

    I agree that commercial-scale indoor grows are a bad idea, especially in residential neighborhoods, and for all kinds of reasons (poor use of structures designed as residences, inflated home prices and rents, magnets for home invasions). I haven’t read the proposal yet so I can’t comment on how they attempt to deal with the issue of commercial indoor grows in residential neighborhoods.

    But as far as agriculture on agricultural lands, it seems to me that to the greatest degree possible, cannabis should be treated like any other crop. So, for example, if we think that too much water is being diverted from our rivers and creeks during the dry season (and I think there’s a strong case to be made for that, especially in certain watersheds), then ideally any conservation measures, requirements for storing winter water, and so on, should be required on an equitable basis for all residents, all farmers and all commercial and industrial users in the impacted parts of the watershed.

  18. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Kings and queens? That’s funny. From where I sit, in a neighborhood overrun by pot and crime, it’s the growers who run this county. A peaceful person’s only outlet is anonymous blogs because our lowly pot neighbors are very well armed and don’t take kindly to ‘agitators’.

  19. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    If you associate marijuana with crime, yank a piece of paper out of the nearest printer and roll yourself a phat dunce cap. 12:56, wake up from your retarded world of fake fear…if crime is your problem, take care of the criminals. They might smoke or grow pot too…every type of person does.

  20. Voter
    January 5, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    wow, so the objections are that other industries pollute so we should be allowed to as well? How times have changed.

  21. tra
    January 5, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    I don’t buy into all of Sutherland’s arguments, for example: “In the Mattole, cows are encouraged to shit right in the river.” Really? I mean how does one actually “encourage” a cow to shit in a river? I guess he means by not fencing them out effectively, but if so, he should just say that.

    But I think some of his points are worth thinking about, for example: “vineyards in Mendocino County withdrawing huge amounts of riparian water…” If we are really facing a water crisis during the dry season, and we actually want to be effective in addressing it, we will need to look at ALL users in the watershed, not just go after the ones who grow a plant that some people don’t like. That’s not science, it’s scapegoating.

  22. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    Voter…You’re stuck in grade school if you think somebody’s actually saying “they’re fucking up, so we can too.” For real, be real.

  23. tra
    January 5, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Well, Random Guy, in fairness I can see how Sutherland’s argument can be interpreted that way, though it takes a healthy dose of cynicism to reach that conclusion. However, there is no shortage of cynics, so I suppose it should be unsurprising that quite a few peple would view his comments this way.

    To me, Sutherland’s comments about the proposed regulations might carry more weight if he added some suggestions on what sort of proposals he would support in order to address some of the issues that these regulations are supposed to be trying to address.

  24. tra
    January 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Has anybody got a link to a copy of the county’s draft marijuana ordinance?

  25. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Random guy, that is exactly what the article said. Re-read if you need to. Also, there is a continued escalation with crime associated with pot. I have had several friends who were shot and several who have been killed in Humboldt over marijuana in the last several years. The sad part is that nowadays, with its proliferation, the kids growing up around here look at growing and being hard as a real alternative. It is a major problem. If you don’t see this, my guess is you don’t spend time in Eureka or Hoopa or Fortuna or McKinleyville where the younger generation of wannabe gansters pushing pot and making good money off of it is prevalent. Can we agree on that?

  26. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    Less marijuana law, not more.

  27. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    except don’t legalize it, right random guy.

  28. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    anonymous 1:45, several of your friends shot and killed in humboldt over the last several years eh? gimme a break. Followed by more “Kids these days!” crap.

  29. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Completely and unconditionally decriminalize it, Anonymous 1:54…no brainer.

  30. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Are there pot growers who don’t own firearms? I’m just curious. Because it seems the growers are blowing smoke to polish a turd.

    It’s us vs. them. How our politicians vote tells us who they represent — the growers or the rest of us. Unfortunately, the growers have the money and thus the power and it was enough to sway the most important race in the last election cycle. The growers run the show.

  31. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    You’re the mother of dumb, anonymous 1:58…forgive me for having humored otherwise.

  32. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Who the newspapers run ads for also tells us who they represent. When a publication receives major funding from grow-related businesses, do you think you’ll read a critical pot expose in it?

    So we sit back while our neighborhoods deteriorate, arrested criminals get slaps on the wrist and the media turns a relative blind eye to the whole thing.

  33. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Wow Random Guy, your juvenile insults have convinced me of your correctness.

    Say, how’s your crop doing?

  34. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Random Guy, you don’t think those people that you read about in the times standard have friends. you don’t think garret benson who went to eureka high had friends. you don’t think that murders in whitethorn, oakland, and alder point are related to marijuana. you don’t think the violence in eureka is directly related to the grow houses and the pot money. the industry has gotten more and more dangerous. it’s a fact. people like you don’t want to admit that becasue then you are forced to confront the fact that you don’t care as long as you make money off it. right? you probably want it to stay illegal regardless of the consequences. that is fine but think about that the next time you criticize oil companies and shit like that for making profits at all costs. it’s the same shit.

  35. longwind
  36. January 5, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    If,the number of grow houses is as high as estimated then the violence related to marijuana is very minimal. You new bloods knew what this area was about before you left your birthplaces and tried to force your beliefs on us,please feel free to go back anytime

  37. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    2:11, what about hte guy who robbed the gas station on wabash…what about the cars that got broke into on fickle hill…what about the shoplifters at target…what about the dogs barking at raccoons on H st…what about the guy who drove his truck through a fence on purpose on california st…what about the lady who stole her neighbor’s laundry off the line on elk river rd…what about looking at the big picture?

  38. longwind
    January 5, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Readers will note that the regs declare rural cottage industries to be categorically illegal, while purporting to regulate them.

    Any questions?

  39. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 5, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Not to beat the head into the sand even more,

    but this was an anticipated result of this issue AS WAS SEERED.

    Now, when will votes begin to admit that boards, commissions, working groups, etc…. are just pseudonyms for carbon copies of the uptown leadership that disguises democracy with people who really usurp and mock the democratic republic process. It is past time to use simple, comparable examples of how government and its piper rat cronies seek to launder, manipulate and deceive the citizenry through feeble selection process of its subordianting membership drives for such social community issues. I am impressed, NOT.

    A smear for each count:

    Count #1 – ODOR = Trojan Horse for political shenanigans.

    Count #2 – DIESEL SPILLS = Anyone check out the equipment and maintenance yards for the North Central Eastern and Southern storage facilities for county maintained equipment? How about the spillages county operations commit? Yep, loser arguments seem to take center stage in Humboldt County politics.

    Count #3 – WATER WITHDRAWLS = Yea, Humboldt County has such the “positive tract(track) record” at protecting the water rights stolen from our community by other communities…..or, how about Humboldt’s finest wealthy class wannabe’s who flood front lawns, pool areas, long showers where singing and moaning occur, etc…

    Count #4 – HOUSE NOT UP TO CODE = after no later than 1 year in time, everyone’s house is not up to code……just another lameoid argument by politcal shenanigan players who know how stupid the AVERAGE OR LESS American citizen is with regard to property rights, laws, taxes, etc……….

    Count #5 – What more can be said right now, wait until later when the political elites get publicly ridiculed for such rubbish and hash out the reasonings.

    Count #6 – Dispensaries means probable manipulation since tax collections are to be generated…..

    Good write-up. So, who served on the committee to make these SUGGESTIONS err proposal?

    Must be about power, control and tax collection – I could be wrong, but unlikely on this issue. Seems we need the nanny state elders and their indoctrinated to sign-up for Obama’s Health Care Plan since they will be the ones to NEED MMJ for being duped as voters for so long, not to mention the personal opinings by anti MJ folks that render attitudes of hate worse than that of certain crimes again humanity – those same crimes that religious people and fascist government at all levels endorse……… AND COMMIT THEMSELVES TOO!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  40. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    you win random guy. it’s totally good for the community. the people in yesterdays paper with 500 plants and guns were good people that we should encourage to continue living in the community.
    2:22, i’m born and raised here, layefete, zane, eureka high, hsu. how about you?

  41. Not A Native
    January 5, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    anon 2:11 tells it like it is. Man who shits in the woods is morally bankrupt, hiding the damage caused by easy money criminals as excusable because other damages are tolerated.

    Its getting real tired to hear the same mantra that criminal pot growers are justifed because of other society compromises. Fact is, we need food and clothing a whole lot more than we need pot. Its morally reasonable to tolerate negative effects of necessities than the same effects caused by unecessary things. Theres no valid social reason to tolerate the negative effects of outlaw pot grows, period.

  42. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    anonymous 2:30, that’s how different a page somebody can be on? Or are you insulting yourself? Do you really think the cops were staking out a friendly bunch? I don’t. I have at least that much faith in their priorities.

  43. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 5, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Captain Obvious says:
    January 5, 2011 at 12:17 pm
    To summarize:

    1. We don’t want your air pollution.

    2. We don’t want your soil pollution.

    3. Pay for the water you use.

    4. Don’t put a fire hazard in our neighborhoods.

    Excuse us if we don’t give a damn that the rich kids are whining about playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

    Response:

    #1) What part of Humboldt do you contribute YOUR AIR POLLUTION?

    #2) What part of Humboldt do you contribute YOUR SOIL POLLUTION?

    #3) If I have a right to that water via a well, I don’t have to pay. If I let my dog drink river or creek water, I don’t have to pay. SO, obviously, at some point for usage as measured in gallons, someone is gonna have to pay – now, where does that start, before or after treatment, if at all? If you live rural and take rural water, storage is key in today’s over-populated society; yet, there exists a fine line that needs to be separated first by ownership of land as compared to trespassers upon land. If it were fruit trees, no one would really say chit cuz birds can perch on tree limbs and not buds, right? If it were some other produce, no one would say chit cuz it is produce. If it were livestock (which provides less food for people than grains), no one would give a chit cuz it is animals for ffod, etc..

    Yes, we are in a water war, but its best to really have a clear picture of the who, what, where, when, why and how’s.

    #4) Do you not notice there are more fire hazzards in populated Humboldt as compared to under-populated Humboldt? Gee whiz, all those retail goods and services so close to population centers that provide flammable products. Kids and lighters, adults who play with illegal fireworks, exhaust pipes everywhere, people in general, etc…

    JL

  44. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    NAN, you’re putting words into mouths as well…who is saying “because they’re fucking up, we can too”? Are you in third grade? You’re not associated with anybody who grows pot…and if you are, you’re a total hypocrite! Mantra??? from whence comes this drone? Go make an ordinance that people can’t grow food and clothes in dilapidateded conditions, doofus. Satisfy your need to get things done by throwing more paperwork at everybody.

  45. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    I think of this ordinance crap as more crap along the lines of laws that want to make guns unavailable to everybody because criminals use them. It’s not a conspiracy theory to say that only empowers criminals, who would use the gun criminally anyway.

  46. Not A Native
    January 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    random guy, the criminal pot growers and traffikers are losing credibility and support in HumCo. The proof is that this regulation will pass, and folks in city neighborhoods and rural communities are coming out of the closet supporting enforcement to abate nusiances that are harming their social and environmental life here.

    More and more often, grows are being reported and the HCDTF is going after the perps. This regulation will allow further charges to be brought against outlaw criminals. And if you’re one of them, you won’t be tolerated in the future. My advice to you is get out of HumCo fast or we’ll seeing you jailed with your ill gotten loot forfeited.

  47. January 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Anon 2:30-multi generation or I wouldn’t have said it genius

  48. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    So will the real estate agents come out against this? Property Rights? HumCPR?

  49. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    “we continue to see a continuing attempt to punish and control hippies. This is not the “equal protections of law” but BULLSHIT – sucking up to the resentments and prejudice by ranchers, loggers, farmers, truckers, and cops against the industry of the “newcomers”.”

    We don’t smoke marijuana in Muskogee…

    Humboldt County: Where Hippies go to die.

  50. Random Guy
    January 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    NAN, you’re just demonstrating how small the circle must be that you’re talking about. Humboldt is a relatively small population in my mind already. There aren’t fifty thousand marijuana growers in this county, but there are in the san francisco bay area, or los angeles, if that makes sense. I don’t see a need for more paperwork to solve anything…and I don’t see criminals being supported by anybody, certainly not me. The criminals described are as anonymous as anybody could be when aware they’re committing a crime…probably not telling everybody how to deal with it on the internet.

    With my own two eyes, I don’t see all this ganja crime everybody on the internet doesn’t see either. It’s blown out of proportion to hussle politics. Write your specific complaints and take em to somebody who can do something about them, if they’re so grating. Specific doesn’t include lines like “all these new criminal growers doing this and that”, interspersed by how it was in your good ol’ days when the TV told you what to think instead of the internet.

  51. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    This regulation will allow further charges to be brought against outlaw criminals.

    Native, as a Gallegos supporter, do you not see the irony in your statement?

  52. longwind
    January 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    The draft regulations make marijuana edibles illegal. In fact they’re what keeps many dispensaries in business. They exemplify the kind of value-added industry that the county would keep from flourishing. Um, why?

  53. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Um, why?

    Umm, because everything people are saying about crime and neighborhood degradation is real. If you believe the lies of criminals, I’m sure this news makes no sense whatsoever.

  54. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    By the way, my use of the word ‘criminal’ refers to the BS being shoveled by the anonymous posters here, not the reasoned words of the guest author.

  55. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Sutherland is just a crybaby who wants to continue to get money illegally, no different from any other greedy person.

  56. Not A Native
    January 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    If you’ve got a point to make anon 3:31, spit it out. Your old innuendo and wink wink is better suited for criminal types, which certainly don’t include Gallegos. With new regulations come new sanctions, fairly and equitably applied to suit the specific facts. If you believe Gallegos isn’t upholding the laws, your posting here doesn’t corroborate it.

  57. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Oh come now Native. On the local level, what’s the downside of having an illegal grow? What sort of deterrent is probation? You read the newspaper, right?

  58. longwind
    January 5, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Um, 3;52,

    you’re saying baking brownies causes crime and neighborhood degradation? Why wouldn’t it cause employment too?

    Does employment degrade neighborhoods?

  59. WhatNow
    January 5, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    POSTED BY “ANONYMOUS 3:54”
    “By the way, my use of the word ‘criminal’ refers to the BS being shoveled by the anonymous posters here…”

    Am i the only one that gets the irony of that post?

  60. anon1
    January 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    You think we have no money in the community right now. Wait and see how many people are spending money in your shops, and then even less money for police and fire. hm mm.

  61. Anonymous
    January 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    it is the right or the conservatives pushing this, it is the county. lovelace, smith, girard, and county counsel.

  62. up right citizen
    January 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    Please! Not every grower is a hippie or a young thug. I’ve met who are doctors, lawyers, teachers, ranchers, rednecks, politicians, loggers, retiree’s etc… who use and/or grow. People will grow or use regardless of the law. The same as people drank during prohibition. As long as MJ is illegal, there is a profit motive. Clearly MJ is not food or clothing and should not be treated as such. I assume there are rules and regs for brewing alcohol and growing tobacco for profit, so does make sense for there to be additional restrictions placed on commercial grows? Probably. Every grower knows that hay days of widespread commercial growing are coming to an end. Until then they are getting bigger and bolder every year.

  63. up right citizen
    January 5, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Also, for the record Anon 6:30, Lovelace,Smith and Girard are not conservative.

  64. Steak n Eggs
    January 5, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    When there is money on the line things get pretty blurry. But thats to be expected. Looking forward to the County, Planning Commission or BOS taking public comment on this. Its laughable that some of you are dismissing some of the fairly obvious impacts. No one is saying that you cannot grow. Lets just make it harder for the morons and idiots, and everyone will much better off.

  65. Mr. Nice
    January 5, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    Oh shit, better get ‘er done all legit and smelling like a fresh fucking meadow for all these new regulations and shit. It’s not like the police and the county government can eat a dick or anything.

  66. treesnstuff
    January 5, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    i love humboldt county very much and it’s sad to see all of us so divisive and angry on this issue. i really wish we could all come together as a community to address the issue, but i don’t really think we can. there is too much money involved, there are too many people involved, there is to much new blood without ethics/morals, etc.

    but, as far as the county’s proposed regulations, they are pretty lame. a lot of this stuff is already covered under existing laws as many people noted. but beyond that, humboldt county has a real chance to stand up and be a leader. to embrace what it is and make a stand. wouldn’t it be awesome if the county adopted progressive, one-of-a-kind regulations? how about economic development for the cannabis sector? how about subsidies? how about research and study? hell, open up the world’s top marijuana research facility at humboldt state! if people’s houses are not up to code then make it a freakin’ wpa project and hire people to help get them up to code, etc. that’s how a democracy is supposed to work. the government for and by the people works to build the people up and sustain a high quality of life for them. humboldt county: put your money where your mouth is and break the mold by adopting revolutionary regulations that work with the current reality instead of fighting it.

  67. Ponder z
    January 5, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Robert Sutherland, The man who walks in the woods.

    and grows to much “Medical MJ”. So much you need extra water tanks to divert stream watershed? You are a greeeeedy dope grower. You belong in a prison. Your boyfriend can smuggle weed to you in his anus.
    Dope growers stink.
    Dope growers destroy the environment.
    Dope growers drive 4×4 diesel trucks.
    So many dope growers, weed is $700.lb
    Haa Haa. now you have to grow even more to make your land payment.

  68. Thirdeye
    January 5, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    Riiiiight, treesnstuff. The county should subsidize a multimillion dollar tax free industry! Those poor devils are struggling just to get by and the onerous regulations are sure to drive them under!

  69. Thomas Paine Jr
    January 6, 2011 at 6:13 am

    This is an attempt to illegally amend prop 215, and the courts have already ruled that the state, and or local jurisdictions CAN NOT change or limit your rights under prop 215 or the MMPA.
    LAWSUITS are coming to Arcata over that piece of shit law.

  70. anon1
    January 6, 2011 at 7:26 am

    ponder z–sounds like you want some?

  71. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 6, 2011 at 8:13 am

    Not A Native says:
    January 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    random guy, the criminal pot growers and traffikers are losing credibility and support in HumCo. The proof is that this regulation will pass, and folks in city neighborhoods and rural communities are coming out of the closet supporting enforcement to abate nusiances that are harming their social and environmental life here.

    More and more often, grows are being reported and the HCDTF is going after the perps. This regulation will allow further charges to be brought against outlaw criminals. And if you’re one of them, you won’t be tolerated in the future. My advice to you is get out of HumCo fast or we’ll seeing you jailed with your ill gotten loot forfeited.

    SmokeMonster says:
    January 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    Anon 2:30-multi generation or I wouldn’t have said it genius

    Anonymous says:
    January 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm
    So will the real estate agents come out against this? Property Rights? HumCPR?

    Response: Reading between the lines, and then some, NAN mentions neighborhoods. Well, I have to say, tell out in the hills which people want NEIGHBORHOODS?

    In fact, urban population NEIGHBORHOODS allow folks to funnel THEIR TOXINS RIGHT ON DOWN THE DRAIN IF SOCIETY IS SO LUCKY FOR SUCH THE MASS IMPACTS BY MASS POPULATION LOADS.

    Factually, humans who live like sardines poison like sardines too – all those retail goods and services (chemical laiden products that is); ocean islands of plastics and other toxic junk; pharma pills that anti-mj folks are addicted too, AND LIKE IT THAT WAY, etc….

    So, there is no wonder why water for urban development is so important….and it has nothing to do with produce or food; rather, it has to do with dillution for the toxins that anti-mj folks create in much more impacting fashions than a grower ever will WHICH AFFECTS THE QUALITY OF WATER.

    SAD TO LIE FOLKS, SAD!

    JL

  72. treesnstuff
    January 6, 2011 at 8:19 am

    thirdeye: fine, then tax cannabis and then subsidize it. it works for the oil companies. it works for corn growers in the midwest. why shouldn’t the cannabis industry get subsidies too? if it weren’t for subsidies and built-in advantages, oil would not reign supreme as our source of energy. oil is only cheap because our government makes sure that it’s cheap through subsidies, lax tax laws, handouts, etc. why should cannabis be treated any different? surely cannabis is less destructive than drilling for oil.

  73. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 6, 2011 at 8:23 am

    NOT THAT ANTI-MJ FOLKS ARE THE ONLY TOXIN PRODUCERS EITHER; AND, I SURELY UNDERSTAND THE DOWNSTREAM AND UPSTREAM AFFECTS. Still though, the media attention is tainted to cover-up a very worse situation – that which where the water is going that is wasted on non-biodegradeable or wasteful consumer products and services that utilize mass toxic materials to make that product. Seems as if the biggest toxic producers are big business, corporate conglomerates that brainwash the human conscience into consumerisms and retail sales that are a joke for purposes of usefulness. In other words, so many products are junk and the people who had jobs to create that junk should have never had the job to begin with if that junk is fracken up the planet. So, who to blame?

    Has anyone ever considered eliminating recreational uses all along the riverways? No. Why not? It is about Freedoms and liberties. Yes, it is; however, human-kind must be smarter when it comes to reproductions and population over-growths. Humans are retracing their forefathers’ biggest mistakes that led to societal destructions………..Obviously, denying known uses and existences of past pleasures is sure to ruffle any user’s feathers.

    JL

  74. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 6, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Anonymous says:
    January 5, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    Um, why?

    Umm, because everything people are saying about crime and neighborhood degradation is real. If you believe the lies of criminals, I’m sure this news makes no sense whatsoever.

    Response: Depends upon whether neighbors are true in their thoughts; or, sinister in their actions over something they personally don’t do or may not like. Simple laundering politics that sabatoge true peace because the arguments for action are tainted, maliciously. Now, if you delineate the different drugs (legal too like your pharma sleeping pills), there is no way that neighbors CAN’T CLAIM THEIR OWN HYPOCRISY.

    JL

  75. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 6, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Steak n Eggs says:
    January 5, 2011 at 6:42 pm
    When there is money on the line things get pretty blurry. But thats to be expected. Looking forward to the County, Planning Commission or BOS taking public comment on this. Its laughable that some of you are dismissing some of the fairly obvious impacts. No one is saying that you cannot grow. Lets just make it harder for the morons and idiots, and everyone will much better off.

    Response: Are you suggesting that Humboldt County’s elected officials (by vote); California elected officials (by vote), etc… should continue to make it harder for morons and idiots so that everyone is much better off; or, are you fantasizing?

    What social reality are you experiencing in this country right now. Decades of diatribal deceit, masticating manipulation, loitering launderings, social sabatoges, etc… have fracked this country, it is near over like Rover the Pit Bull’s execution.

    Ok, so who is having children?

    JL

  76. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 6, 2011 at 8:40 am

    Ponder,

    if a land owner has a right via title to take water via a well or other system, not much one can say about what is drawn. Just sayin there exists very few downstream options; and, if there is no historical flow data for the streamway, waterway, etc… that which where the water is drawn from, there is less of an argument for “new users” down stream (less obvious illegal environmental impacts). Oops, the cat is outta the box.

    JL

  77. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 6, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Then, there is riparian water rights intermingled with uses……

    JL

  78. Joel Mielke
    January 6, 2011 at 9:07 am

    I didn’t think that it would be possible for the Henchman to post more and make less sense, but there you have it.

  79. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 6, 2011 at 9:14 am

    Joel Mielke, I did not think you could be Mr. Nice, I was right. Mr Nice is more decent.

    Anyhow, on such a great argumentative political issue, debate is appropriate. I know, you’ll just have to read more Joel with those out-of-focus lenses giving the spotted-owl (err meth overdose) look.

    Touche’ scammer.

    JL

  80. Straight up
    January 6, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Jeffrey, why don’t you start your own blog and leave the rest of us in peace?

  81. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Not reading Jeff is the easiest New Years resolution ever and it has positive side effects with all the time not wasted trying to figure out wtf he is trying so ineffectually to say.

  82. longwind
    January 6, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Has anyone read the proposed regs yet? These proposed regs?

    http://co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/docs/marijuana-inland.pdf

    http://co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/docs/marijuana-coastal.pdf

    They say edibles are illegal. Not mopes and idiots, edibles. They say rural cottage industries are illegal. Not meth labs, people making money in any way. Are illegal. Those are morons ‘n mopes?

    Sorry gang, but I’d have to be a moron *and* an idiot to think these regulations that explicitly herd 215-stretchers into the Planning Department’s Roach Motel are about regulating pot. If they’re about pot, why do proposed regs twice harp on building permit and property title enforcement, hmm? Read the regs!

    Jeff’s right, if not pellucidly clear. Whatever’s going on here stinks, and it don’t smell like pot.

    ps, the proposed regs also say it’s illegal to smell like pot. I better smell like Humboldt Fog instead, I guess. Or maybe Purple Haze? What a difficult county.

  83. tra
    January 6, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Having now taken the time to read the proposed regs, I think they are best summarized in two words:

    Bureaucratic Overreach.

  84. Anonymous
    January 6, 2011 at 10:45 am

    STOP the bureaucratic overreach ! We want our Meth clubs next!

  85. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 10:55 am

    ha…baloney, jane and joel. Everybody needs to vote for JL on the next go around, whatever position he runs for. Looking at the history of humboldt politics, they seriously need their business-as-usual shit fucked up and he’s the perfect candidate. Definitely not a sellout…definitely on the side of simple is better.

  86. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2011 at 11:28 am

    That sounds like tea party thinking, Random.

  87. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 11:39 am

    so Jane…reading internet politics all day succesfully got you thinking that any thinking outside the box belongs to one of the boxes pre-fab political groups with a very secular agenda? I’m not sayin, I’m just sayin…I don’t know squat about the tea party and don’t care too. While you and joel and most people (me) just babble about this stuff, some non-affilated individuals are actually putting their necks across the chopping block and doing what it takes to get their name on the ballot to make a big difference, for a change. Less is more and we need people in local govt. who recognize that without monetary compromise.

  88. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2011 at 11:58 am

    No Random. “Simple is better” sounds like the Palin wing of the tea party to me and they belong in a padded box. I’ve been reading Jeff’s postings for several years now and rarely does he make any sense. Any one can put their name on a ballot; but it takes a special genius to do so and then refuse to campaign, and something even more “special” to think such a person would make a good politician. Good ideas and the ability to communicate them simply and clearly is mandatory for an effective politician.

  89. skippy
    January 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    I’ve read Mr. Sutherland’s argument… twice. I’ve read all 86 comments to date and the actual draft regulations carefully and in their entirety (thank you, longwind @2:20 for that important link!). I’ve read Random Guy and others rebuttals.

    I’m generally in favor of marijuana cultivation but only if done properly. We’re fully aware of the inherent and significant problems growers have created. These problems need to be addressed.

    The regulations are appropriate and necessary– despite Mr. Sutherland and Random Guy’s claims and dismissals of fair play or redundancy.

    “Chaotic action is preferable to orderly inaction.”
    ~Will Rogers (entertainer, cowboy, actor, humorist 1879-1935)

  90. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    “anyone can put their name on a ballot” but only very few individuals do what it takes, and only individuals make themselves as outspoken and accessible. I can understand what JL says perfectly…longwinded sure but this is the internet, look at the gibberish our elected polititians feed us…brief and to NO point. I look at the ideas over syntax…the internet isn’t a level playing field. I don’t care to know about palin or whoever the fuck either…that’s not reality, why compare to them? They’re fabricated media distractions. Very successful ones at that. They’ve got you comparing your neighbors’ politics to them.

  91. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    …our current president of the united states is the most longwinded blabbermouth I’ve ever witnessesed in that office. He says paragraphs upon paragraphs of redundant NOTHING. Not that any previous president was different, but sadaam obama bin laden fake-o has a special flare for wordy elaborations that do the opposite of elaborate.

  92. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Wow! Random Guy is belatedly added to my “don’t bother to read” list for 2011.

  93. Mitch
    January 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    PJ,

    WTA? (Where’s That Acronym?)

  94. longwind
    January 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    skippy, here’s an emerging picture for me. You’ll remember almost 3 years ago when the county was embroiled in scandals growing out of phony building-code inspections that were actually warrrantless drug searches.

    Three years later, we see proposed laws for drug searches that are actually, by official ordinance now, recruiting code and property-title violations for the Planning Department. Help me to understand this chaos, please.

    I understand that some idiots need the book thrown at them. But because so many complete innocents get books thrown at them, people are rightly suspicious of even necessary reform. Mark Lovelace said on the radio last night (KMUD 7-8, on the archives) that this ordinance just clarifies how illegal it is to have large indoor grows. Then what’s with edibles and cottage work becoming illegal? Why are stretched 215s subjected *by statute* to conflated enforcement programs that the Supervisors themselves agreed were illegal and egregious two years ago?

    As so many people said at the time, of course we need code enforcement and police power. Do we need to funnel fresh meat to departments that can’t otherwise pay their own way? Evidently, but I want to hear why.

  95. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    too bad, plain jane…you are one of the few who writes some real sense on this blog. It sucks to read you’re a sucker for national politics as usual. Tea party? Palin? Why even humor their existence by typing their name.

  96. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    “Three years later, we see proposed laws for drug searches that are actually, by official ordinance now, recruiting code and property-title violations for the Planning Department. Help me to understand this chaos, please.”

    -exactly…I don’t know if you intend this the way I read it, but it’s like adding insult to injury.

  97. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Are you referring to GFY, Mitch? I’ve been trying to be nicer this year, at least until after 5/21, just in case. :p

  98. Mitch
    January 6, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    That’s the TLA I’d had in mind. Remember, you have to be nice until 2012, not just ’til 5/21.

  99. Not A Native
    January 6, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Yeah I read it and found some things that I’d call excessive, but the overall gist of it is sound, IMO.

    The requirements for residential cultivation for personal use(Sec. 55.1.9) are pretty reasonable and are what I’d expect most responsible folks could abide by. But for someone growing for illegal sale, hoping to hide their criminality under the ‘cover’ of personal use, I can understand why they don’t want these requirements. The regs create the possibility of being charged with a civil violation which isn’t as hard to prove as a criminal violation but still takes away their illegal economic returns.

    But someone growing pot in assertion of a civil right, not for greed of money, should welcome being liable for only a civil violation. It would afford the opportunity for publicity and public sympathy without the burden of incarceration. I doubt that sincere ‘growers of conscience’ have much to fear from the enforcement of these regulations.

  100. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    NAN…nobody can grow marijuana right now “legally” unless they list themselves among a national registry that forever compromises their medical condition. People who grow “for profit” supply, among ALL smokers (who are YOU speaking for?) people who see through the bullshit and………



    …just want to buy some weed and smoke it without being hassled.

    In other words…why weren’t you complaining about these ‘profiteers’ in the 1990’s? Fuggin hypocrites.

  101. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    I’m not sure, Mitch. Did the Mayans expect to go to heaven when the world ends? If the Rapture date passes and nothing happens, will I have to start doing blood sacrifices and ritual mutilation to prepare for Mayan heaven on 12/21/2011?

  102. longwind
    January 6, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Yes, RG, that’s how I read the law too.

    “Stretch a 215, go straight to the county Paddle Palace, hippie.”

    And if you really are a mope, lose your house. Great way to make peace with pot.

  103. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Speaking to posters who are 50+ years old…you are well aware of how naive you think your parents’ and grandparents’ sense of politics are? I don’t see politics like MY grandparents, that’s for sure. Realize that your tea party sarah palin name dropping asses got chumped into being just like your parents and grandparents…brainwashed by popular media. It’s a massive bullshit machine fueled by money = human labor = cannibalistic cattle culture.

    Plain Jane…what did you have to say about marijuana law in the 1980’s, and how did you envision the situation being today…post Y2K? How did you HOPE the situation would be by the year 2000?

  104. Mitch
    January 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    PJ,

    Well, in the words of my guru:

    “Can it hurt?” (Pause) “No.”
    “Might it help?” (Pause) “Well, mebbe.”
    “So try it, already.”

  105. Mitch
    January 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    It sounds better with a Yiddish accent.

  106. Not A Native
    January 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Thats it random guy, just change the topic when you don’t like being called out as an apploogist for antisocial behavior. Making money illegally isn’t a valid exercise of civil rights, social or political protest. Freeing the herb doesn’t equate to freeing the money from someone else’s wallet.

    Under California law, growing, possessing, and using pot with a doctor’s approval is legal but limited. Growing, possessing and traffiking pot for general sale is strictly illegal under California law.(Possession of less than 1 oz. is an infraction, the lowest level of offense).

    The proposed county ordinances simply regulate the manner and location of the legally permitted activities so they don’t create collateral nuisances. And the ordinance attempts to ensure legal activites aren’t comingled with or hide illegal ones.

  107. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    If you really want to stimulate “the economy”…support nothing short of complete decriminalization of marijuana. Stoners are among the biggest impulse spenders of all.

  108. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    I think blood sacrifices and ritual mutilation might hurt a bit, Mitch.

  109. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Ya, NAN the law is carved in stone because it’s always right. Marijuana should be legal all the time for everybody…that said, I see your point but don’t see the need to carve more stone to achieve the same goal. Like I’ve already asked, what part of “there are already laws in place” don’t some of you get? Who’s going to care about breaking these new laws, whom you would say should care? It’s very inside legislation…politicians making a name for themselves through legislation, certain people wanting a green light to “blow up their scene” without getting arrested…it’s all a joke as long as los federales want it to be as well…

    …a waste of everybody’s time and money.

  110. Mitch
    January 6, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Oy. So it might hurt? So don’t do it, already.

  111. Random Guy
    January 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    “an apploogist for antisocial behavior” I take that as a compliment!

  112. anon1
    January 6, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    NAN, wake up,WE are the law..Start thinking for yourself…and stop being what your Mom said you should, she didn’t know any better..You oughta.

  113. Thomas Paine Jr
    January 6, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    After reading the comment i have come to the conclusion that most people are too stupid to discuss the law. They are to rooted in false assumtions, and wives tales and wishes of what they think the law SHOULD be, not what it really is.

    The courts are generally on the side of the medical cannabis patient/grower.

    Take no plea, appeal any conviction, and do not speak to the or the city/county about your medical condition or treatment.

    Do not speak to the police, anything you say WILL be turned against you. Let your lawyer do ALL of your speaking for you.

    When you win, seek return of property, damages, and lawyers fees.

  114. Anonymous
    January 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    I am all in favor of legalizing pot. The more losers there are out there getting stoned & more stupid & lazy by the day, the less competition there is for good jobs. You & your kids will grow up mowing my & my kids lawns for a meager living.

  115. Anonymous
    January 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    But they will also be on public assistance, and your tax dollars will be stretched.

  116. Kale Estanoche
    January 6, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    As a supporter of marijuana legalization I read the draft ordinance with some trepidation. My gut reaction was similar to TRA’s response of bureaucratic overreach. Upon closer review, it seems that the ordinance is geared primarily to indoor, residential and commercial grows and, as such, many of the proposed limitations make sense.

    Nevertheless, a few issues stand out to me as overreach. Principally, I think greenhouses should be removed from the definition of residential cultivation (unless the greenhouses utilize artificial lighting and/or power usage in excess of the threshold in the draft language). I would also amend limitations on the size of the grow to be based on power usage rather than area.

    I also question the wisdom of outright prohibiting cultivation as a cottage industry. Why not leave the option open?

    Lastly, the ordinance should obviously take seriously water withdrawals from our impaired watersheds. However, Item 14 on Water takings seems overly broad. Rewrite to allow methods such as wet-weather water harvest and storage.

  117. tra
    January 6, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Okay, I’ve read several times now about the “outright prohibiting of cultivation as a cottage industry.” Could one of you folks (Kale, longwind, or whoever) point me to that section of the proposed ordinance?

    I’m not at all doubting that it’s in there, but as a non-lawyer who has only given it a quick read, I didn’t catch that. So if one of you has a page number or whatever, that would be appreciated.

  118. Not A Native
    January 6, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    Look at Sec 55.1.9, paragraph 8. It excludes growing,
    processing, and storing from being considered cottage industries or
    home occupations. I think it was included to close a loophole and
    provide consistency within the land use code. It clarifies that
    growing pot in a residence doesn’t get the exemptions from
    regulation as do specifically enumerated cottage industries, home
    occupations, and accessory uses that are specified in other
    sections of the land use code.

  119. tra
    January 7, 2011 at 12:30 am

    Thanks for directing me to the pertinent section, NAN.

    Personally I don’t see why growing shouldn’t be allowed as a “cottage industry.” Decentralized, relatively small and moderate-sized grows have worked quite well in Humboldt, in terms of spreading the wealth around a bit, as opposed to most or all of the profits going to a few big industrial-style growers.

    Well, I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that some folks would rather see profits centralized and concentrated to a few big players. Hey, this model has worked so well for banks and insurance companies, right?

  120. January 7, 2011 at 8:05 am

    For clarity,this is saying as long as you are 50sqft. Or under you’re ok? No grouping of ‘scripts? No problem,unless you are one of the greedy ones.

  121. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 7, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Hmmm,

    who will be the first to get prosecuted for growing their mj in a greenhouse larger than 50 FT SQ.?

    Seems to me this threshhold is based upon taking “known” and “established” greenhouse sizes based on industry standards that are sold by industrial fascists – ya know, those metal ones. Ya, the homestead self-built greenhouse don’t count for making regulatory policies and such cuz it is the little guy who gains, not the bigger guy (err gal too for PC in economics and finances).

    If 100 ft. sq. maximum roof coverage is acceptable to build a shed without safety features, then who will wait for the non-electrical DTF bust for a greenhouse exceding 50 ft. sq. but still under 100 ft. sq. maximum roof coverage?

    Good Luck on that attempt.

    JL

  122. skippy
    January 7, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Skippy’s Report: Seeing the Planning Commission in action Thursday night (January 6th, 6pm) discussing the proposed ordinance was somewhere between a comedy of errors and a beached whale floundering. It was a comical mess. Worthy of Charlie Chaplin’s best and with the Keystone Cops tossed in for a few good laughs and some misguided shenanigans.

    Clearly the Commission had no idea what direction they were going in; derailing often and placed back on track by Planning Director Girard. Taking a proposed marijuana draft ordinance– composed and easily lifted in its entirety from the urban cities of Arcata and Eureka– the audience, for good reason, bemoaned the restrictive measures for rural areas of the county.

    Chair Jeff Smith, attempting to ram the proposal through and limiting public input in the shortest time allowed, noted he would abstain from voting and partaking in the discussion– leading to the chaos and confusion.

    Commissioner ‘Buffalo Bill’ Mayo suggested an ACLU attorney coordinate with Kim Nelson, a speaker and pro-grower advocate, for some decision-making plans and speaking directly to the peanut-gallery audience. Commissioner Emad, usually well-spoken was at a loss; Faust, eloquently speaking from his years of policy experience offered the larger view and most clarity; Gearhart, squarely pondering the possibilities went nowhere; Nelson, obliviously arrogant claiming he knew ‘more about marijuana as a Doctor and timber owner than the audience,’ offered little knowledge.

    A speaker asking, ‘Does the Commission have any marijuana experience whatsoever?’ elicited groans and guffaws from the hipster audience. The Commission didn’t have a clue. Nor did they have a vowel to buy.

    Robert Sutherland, the originally scathing HH essayist here, was a confusingly bewildered picture of opaque vagaries; his lucidity unfortunately lacking in thought and substance other than noting the draft was poorly crafted.

    The best, brightest, most humorous, and real speakers were Kim and Charlie, two amiable and fun SoHum amigos. Kim, A David Crosby look-alike; Charlie, normally something out of Easy Rider movie was tonight sporting a cardigan sweater worthy of Mr. Rogers’ friendly neighborhood. Bringing some inadvertent humor along with them, Kim and Charlie convincingly advocated bringing growers– ‘From Southern Humboldt to Island Mountain to Orleans’– together for some realistic input. Given their position of Humboldt ‘leading the way for the commercial curve of the marijuana industry’, the ‘Kim and Charlie Show’ made some open-mindedly persuasive points regarding restrictions and a hopeful cottage industry out of the proposed draft. They really are a funny duo– and really ought to have their own radio show.

    So how did all this turn out? In the next post I’ll relate the latest news. Peace. …skips

  123. skippy
    January 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Skippy’s Report, Pt II:

    Yes, how did this turn out? From the Times-Standard’s article of 01/07/11 written by Donna Tam:

    “No decisions, plenty of public comments: Planning commission wades through housing element, medical marijuana ordinance”
    (By Donna Tam/The Times-Standard)
    01/07/2011 01:23:24 AM PST

    “The Humboldt County Planning Commission came under fire Thursday night from residents concerned about the future of development in McKinleyville and the county’s proposed medical marijuana ordinance. The commission ultimately moved both topics to future meetings.

    …Other members of the public spoke about the medical marijuana ordinance. Many said the ordinance, which borrowed largely from Arcata’s and Eureka’s existing ordinances, did not fit for the unincorporated areas of the county where marijuana cultivation is a large-scale industry. Furthermore, opponents felt the ordinance further stigmatized marijuana instead of recognizing it as part of Humboldt’s economy.

    Kim Nelson, a member of the Humboldt Medical Marijuana Advisory Panel (HuMMAP), said what the community needs is a cannabis council to provide input on the ordinance. “We need a cannabis council. This cannot be written by a county planner unless you know something about growing,” he said.

    The commission did not choose to hold a separate public workshop on the matter, but instead encouraged all interested parties to submit their input in writing. In December, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors had instructed the commission not to make a decision Thursday, and instead decide whether an additional workshop was necessary based on the night’s comments.”

    “(Donna Tam can be reached at 441-0532 or dtam@times-standard.com.)”

    …So, no workshop for now, it appears. Will this change? It’s probably best to submit your input about the proposed draft in writing to the Planning Commission at: City of Eureka, 531 K Street, Eureka, CA. 95501. They said their staff will forward it to the Commissioners.

    Questions? City Hall’s number is: #441-4144

    ~skips

  124. Steve
    January 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Hey Skips- That’s Humboldt County Planning Commission, not
    City o’ Eureka…

  125. Reinventing The Wheel
    January 7, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    If we were rational about water resources, water quality, and health, beef products would reflect their actual costs and far fewer consumers would be able to afford it, same as gasoline.

    Imagine that…longer, healthier lives, fewer wars, our schools can afford to reopen and we can hire enough police to walk a beat.

    The author and many posts are correct; it’s always about power and money. Those who have it try to limit access by the proletariat, just as in Prohibition when regulators overlooked enforcement on distilleries operated by connected individuals.

    Eventually, when Phillip Morris corner’s the Humboldt-brand, the Chamber, Rotary, Ingomar and church will rush to praise the industry and its, “commitment to our community and contributions to our economy”.

    Then, the profits will leave to NY, and the investors at the Ingomar will watch their PM stock rise.

  126. Anonymous
    January 7, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    So join the rotary and the chamber now. Oh and church too.

  127. skippy
    January 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Skippy misled the Dear Reader astray– and Steve @ 1:03 beat Skippy to the punch– before he could correct the error of his ways. My sincere apologies to all, yours truly must improve. My bad!

    Written comments about the proposed ordinance should be sent to the Humboldt County Development Services, Planning Division, at 3015 H Street, Eureka.

    Their phone number is: 445-7541

  128. Anonymous
    January 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Pot is for losers and so is this topic. What the hell, is Heraldo on vacation or what? Time for a new topic!

  129. tra
    January 7, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    55.1.9 Residential Cultivation for Personal Use:

    An individual qualified patient shall be allowed to engage in residential cultivation of medical marijuana for the patient’s personal use, as long as the cultivation occurs indoors as defined herein.

    Residential Cultivation: the growing of medical marijuana indoors within a residence, as defined
    herein, or the growing of medical marijuana indoors, as defined herein, within a secured garage,
    outbuilding, greenhouse, or other accessory structure associated with a residence and situated on
    the same parcel as the residence.
    Residence: any structure designed or used for residential occupancy.

    Okay, let’s see how this might apply in rural Humboldt, on, let’s say, a parcel of 160 acres that is zoned as Ag or TPZ.

    From my (non-lawyer) reading of the definition of “Residential Cultivation” it seems like if the owner/resident has their plants in a greenhouse which is located on the same parcel as their residence, they would be defined as engaging in “indoor residential cultivation” and subject to the that whole set of rules. I really don’t think that’s what most people have in mind when they cite their concerns about indoor residential grows. Just to take one example, that dreaded odor of maturing ganja is not really an issue when your nearest neighbor is measured in miles, not feet.

    If, instead of putting the plants in a greenhouse, the farmer places them outside in the garden, it’s not clear to me whether this ordinance simply has nothing to say about them, or whether this part of the ordinance

    …as long as the cultivation occurs indoors.

    would actually ban outdoor growing on any parcel where there is a residence?

    Now just for fun, imagine that you wanted to start your seedlings or clones in the greenhouse and then move them outdoors for the warmer months. It seems like under this ordinance, while you had the plants in the greenhouse you’d be doing “indoor residential cultivation” and subject to that set of rules, then when you moved them outside into the garden it would be a different set of rules? Or no rules? Or would growing outdoors be banned entirely if there is any residence on the parcel? If so, what about an ag or TPZ parcel that does NOT have any residence on it? Would it be legal to grow your outdoor plants there, and if so, would that be with or without the 50 square foot limit?

    The proposed ordinance goes into a great deal of detail on the rules about indoor residential grows, the rules for co-ops, collectives, and delivery services, medical marijuana business offices, etc., but it isn’t clear to me what changes, if any, this new ordinance would make for outdoor, NON-residential grows.

    I hope that one of our local lawyers/bloggers like Ed Denson and/or Eric Kirk might take a look over the language of this proposed ordinance and offer their opinion on what how these rules would apply in various circumstances.

  130. Anony2
    January 7, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    Would you be in favor of tightening the restrictions on who gets the 215 card Tra? In other words, make only the truely sick & needy eligible for the cards?

    Or do you favor the current system where anybody with $65 can get the card from phoney doctors?

  131. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 7, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    tra says:
    January 7, 2011 at 5:34 pm
    55.1.9 Residential Cultivation for Personal Use:

    An individual qualified patient shall be allowed to engage in residential cultivation of medical marijuana for the patient’s personal use, as long as the cultivation occurs indoors as defined herein.

    Residential Cultivation: the growing of medical marijuana indoors within a residence, as defined
    herein, or the growing of medical marijuana indoors, as defined herein, within a secured garage,
    outbuilding, greenhouse, or other accessory structure associated with a residence and situated on
    the same parcel as the residence.
    Residence: any structure designed or used for residential occupancy.

    Okay, let’s see how this might apply in rural Humboldt, on, let’s say, a parcel of 160 acres that is zoned as Ag or TPZ.

    From my (non-lawyer) reading of the definition of “Residential Cultivation” it seems like if the owner/resident has their plants in a greenhouse which is located on the same parcel as their residence, they would be defined as engaging in “indoor residential cultivation” and subject to the that whole set of rules. I really don’t think that’s what most people have in mind when they cite their concerns about indoor residential grows. Just to take one example, that dreaded odor of maturing ganja is not really an issue when your nearest neighbor is measured in miles, not feet.

    If, instead of putting the plants in a greenhouse, the farmer places them outside in the garden, it’s not clear to me whether this ordinance simply has nothing to say about them, or whether this part of the ordinance

    …as long as the cultivation occurs indoors.

    would actually ban outdoor growing on any parcel where there is a residence?

    Now just for fun, imagine that you wanted to start your seedlings or clones in the greenhouse and then move them outdoors for the warmer months. It seems like under this ordinance, while you had the plants in the greenhouse you’d be doing “indoor residential cultivation” and subject to that set of rules, then when you moved them outside into the garden it would be a different set of rules? Or no rules? Or would growing outdoors be banned entirely if there is any residence on the parcel? If so, what about an ag or TPZ parcel that does NOT have any residence on it? Would it be legal to grow your outdoor plants there, and if so, would that be with or without the 50 square foot limit?

    The proposed ordinance goes into a great deal of detail on the rules about indoor residential grows, the rules for co-ops, collectives, and delivery services, medical marijuana business offices, etc., but it isn’t clear to me what changes, if any, this new ordinance would make for outdoor, NON-residential grows.

    I hope that one of our local lawyers/bloggers like Ed Denson and/or Eric Kirk might take a look over the language of this proposed ordinance and offer their opinion on what how these rules would apply in various circumstances.

    Response: I am still trying to get over a greenhouse being indoors when there is no safety features required and when the size is so small, a motor cycle won’t fit into it if a crane could drop it in; and, heck a person would not even reside in it, etc…. sarcasticly, if the earth is enclosed by the atmosphere and the sun is affected in the same way as a solar roof panel that lets only certain light through, then is the WHOLE EARTH INDOORS? In such the environmentally manipulated county of Humboldt, it is “destroy the land and its resources for big industry and government to make a buck (jobs????), but to restrict good people from not destroying the planet any more than they need to by placing more unnatural materials onto lands that which construct the greenhouses”. Yes, it really is about an out-of-site, out-of-mind concept, even from satellites or planes, let alone a neighbor who looks on their own accord onto someone elses property to stare and be baffled about a plant that may or may not be emotionally approved by the onlooking neighbor.

    JL

  132. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Anony2 says:
    January 7, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    Would you be in favor of tightening the restrictions on who gets the 215 card Tra? In other words, make only the truely sick & needy eligible for the cards?

    Or do you favor the current system where anybody with $65 can get the card from phoney doctors?

    Response: Now if that is accurate, then it points out how much more crooked this political issue is, right? Power, control and tax collection…… still amused by skips part 1.

    JL

  133. Anonymous
    January 7, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Let’s not write “War and Peace” here. Some of us have short attention spans and some of you take more than your fair share of space and our mental time.

    I would say “tax it” . Anyone have a reason why not to?

  134. humboldturtle
    January 7, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    “…do you remember the truly horrible odor that came for decades from the LP pulp mill?”

    It was two pulp mills. People would say “Quit complaining. That’s the smell of money you’re smelling”. Then they would walk outside and say “It smells like its about to shit out here”.

    Both true. Eureka! Give it up. Pot smells GOOD.

  135. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 7, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Anonymous says:
    January 7, 2011 at 7:55 pm
    Let’s not write “War and Peace” here. Some of us have short attention spans and some of you take more than your fair share of space and our mental time.

    I would say “tax it” . Anyone have a reason why not to?

    Response: I would say “Sales Tax It Only”! No reason that sales tax generations could not be appropriate and fair.

    JL

  136. Mitch
    January 7, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    7:55,

    If your down arrow key isn’t fast enough to avoid people taking up too much of your mental time, you should take a course on the Page Down key.

    As for space constraints, you’re absolutely correct. With all these wordy people using up the internet, there’s not going to be any left for people in the developing world.

  137. longwind
    January 7, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    skippy, I pass unto you my sacred journalist pitchfork (this is Humboldt journalism). Thanks for reporting reality, and for showing up.

  138. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 8, 2011 at 12:25 am

    Mitch says:
    January 7, 2011 at 8:39 pm
    7:55,

    If your down arrow key isn’t fast enough to avoid people taking up too much of your mental time, you should take a course on the Page Down key.

    As for space constraints, you’re absolutely correct. With all these wordy people using up the internet, there’s not going to be any left for people in the developing world.

    Response: Shhhhhh, don’t tell those Facebook users that kinda stuff, otherwise 70% of them may want to move to the United States of ? to live and play.

    JL

  139. Anonymous
    January 8, 2011 at 5:42 am

    Henchman, sales tax but also income tax for those who sell, of course.

  140. Thomas Paine Jr
    January 8, 2011 at 7:23 am

    Ok for the last time, doctor that give 215 recommendations are NOT phoney, they are licensed by the state just like any other doctor.
    This law will not stand the test of the courts, neither will the one in Arcata.

  141. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    January 8, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Anonymous says:
    January 8, 2011 at 5:42 am
    Henchman, sales tax but also income tax for those who sell, of course.

    Response: Nah, income taxes are simply launderings of tax dollars through unappropriated frauds. Further, sales taxes nail the abusers up front – the consumers who abuse abusive products. Sales Taxes are the checks and balances for environmental impacts based upon consumerisms. Time to stop the multiple and duplicit taxation scams and graftings.

    Now, if a flat tax applies to all, even the fascist scammers, then maybe income taxing could work, albeit, very short imo. You see, it is like the drug market for the pharma companies – if the customer were to pay the real and actual costs of impacts, there would be no subsidies and the consumer would buy less, thus reducing environmental impacts and forcing changes to the production side of economics that must rduce costs across the board to all, even the producers. So, until the shenanigans cease, you’ll never read me in favor of anything except a national sales tax or FAIR TAX. Afterall, businesses have for too long got away with scamming customers with the old sell high or bid high to cover the losses created by undertrained employees who make mistakes that cause losses – losses that should be eaten by the business, but is pushed onto the consumer until costs are sooooooo high, the consumer eventueally realizes their stupidity and personal greed to have something now, rather than analyzing the future well being of what it is that the CONSUMER THINKS HE OR SHE IS SMART ABOUT.

    JL

  142. skippy
    January 8, 2011 at 11:01 am

    The Dear Reader may be interested in Redheaded Blackbelt’s coverage of current marijuana culture and industry relating here. A very good site and quite the education at http://kymkemp.com/ (or simply go to the ‘Redheaded Blackbelt’ link to your right).

    More enlightening is her link and pictures for California Report’s “New Harvest: The Future of Small Town California, Garberville”, she recently reported on:

    http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201101071630/c

  143. Anonymous
    January 8, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    With a name like Thomas Paine, you should attempt to be more honest & questioning. That local doc who gives out 215 “prescriptions” with a 5 minute appmt for anybody with $65. He is a quack & a fraud.

    He should be run out of the medical profession.

  144. skippy
    January 9, 2011 at 11:29 am

    longwind, thank you. Humbly in your shadow and others offering their insight and inspiration here along with Kim and Charlie– the Dos Amigos– the sacred journalist pitchfork must be passed to all, including Kym Kemp whom yours truly pales in comparison.

  145. Anonymous
    January 9, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Sutherland has a long, long track record of publishing tirades of emotionally-charged, low-grade polemic that have little to do with facts. I’m not sure why people listen to him anymore.

  146. suzy blah blah
    January 9, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    tirades of emotionally-charged, low-grade polemic that have little to do with facts.

    Sounds like he needs to take a walk in the woods.

  147. Mr. Nice
    January 10, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    With a name like Thomas Paine, you should attempt to be more honest & questioning. That local doc who gives out 215 “prescriptions” with a 5 minute appmt for anybody with $65. He is a quack & a fraud.

    He should be run out of the medical profession.

    Give me a hint who this 5 minute appointment / $65 fee / quack / fraud person is. I would like to do a full 5 minute investigation into his quackery.

  148. Anononymous
    January 10, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    He was in a North Coast Journal article some weeks before the Nov 2 election Mr Dumb.

  149. Thomas Paine Jr
    January 11, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    You dislike what the doctor does,that does niot make it illegitimate not illegal. The medical board has guidelines for doctors recommending cannabis and i am sure that all doctors writing recommendations locally are adhering to those guidelines.

  150. Anononymous
    January 12, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    True Paine my mere disgust at what he is doing proves nothing. But prescribing pot as medicine after a quickie appointment does make him a quack & dangerous. I got a longer appointment from my doctor (a real one) for vicodin when I sprained my knee.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s