There will be a lot of change in California coming up and a lot of it isn't good for growers or medical users. Keep apprised of what is going on, the "Guards Unions are fighting hard for their prisoners that they need to have for full employment and the Lawyers need you in jail so that they can pay their bills. Big business from Mexico growers will hit the MJ business hard, they'll be legal with the sell out because of NAFTA and will undercut prices with slave labor on Mexican farms where people are tricked to work on the huge agricultural-farms run by the dangerous dope cartels and politicians.
"Butte County’s marijuana measures a portent of change
By Ryan Olson, Chico Enterprise-Record
Oroville >> There is some agreement among people on both sides of the two marijuana-related issues going before voters June 7.
Proponents and opponents of Measures G and H recognize that the two items are modifications to current ordinances that will remain in effect regardless of the outcome. However, both sides see a changing statewide attitude to marijuana and the upcoming vote may be a sign of things to come.
“This could be a measuring stick to determine the will of the people,” retired Butte County Sheriff Jerry Smith said. Smith is backing the two measures.
Jessica MacKenzie, executive director of the Inland Cannabis Farmers Association, said the measures were a stalling tactic ahead of changes coming this fall. She endorsed a collaborative process instead of only listening to county code enforcement officials as the Board of Supervisors did when backing the changes that became known as Measures G and H.
“The answer is to go back to a collaborative approach,” MacKenzie said.
Supervisors initially approved the changes on Jan. 12, but the cannabis farmers association submitted two petitions of about 13,000 each to have the board either repeal the changes or submit them to voters On March 8, the board agreed to put them on the June 7 ballot.
Measure G would amend the county’s right-to-farm ordinance to expressly state that marijuana cultivation isn’t an agricultural operation under county rules. Both sides agree that the change is relatively minor for now, especially because the right-to-farm already respects federal laws that prohibit marijuana.
MacKenzie said the only reason to include the change was to poke an stick at the cannabis community.
“They’re setting up a second class of farmer,” she said.
At the time, county officials said they sought the change out of an abundance of caution. A state law approved last year recognizes cannabis as an agricultural commodity, and the local change was intended to clarify county rules.
There is also a concern that allowing cannabis under the ordinance could undermine the marijuana cultivation ordinance as the right-to-farm rules limit when proper farming operations may be deemed a nuisance under county regulations.
Smith said including cannabis in the right to farm could eliminate the ability of residents to file nuisance complaints.
Smith said the restriction was appropriate, especially because the county supervisors have heard from constituents in the traditional agricultural industry who were opposed to including cannabis in the right to farm.
One argument against Measure G is that the county would have to either amend the right-to-farm ordinance a second time or face a lawsuit if the federal government changes its stance on marijuana. MacKenzie said the effort was an unnecessary expense.
“It’s not a lot, but why do it at all?” she asked.
Smith said the law ebbs and flows over time and it’s part of the process to amend laws over time. If the county wants to change the law in the future, it could.
The biggest disagreement is over Measure H, which would amend the cultivation ordinance approved by voters in 2014 as Measure A. Measure A set growing dimensions based on lot size, ranging from 50 square-feet for lots between a half-acre and 5 acres to 150 square-feet for properties larger than 10 acres.
While Measure H clarifies allowable garden sizes in specific conditions, much of the focus has been on the proposal to combine the citation and nuisance abatement process into one. The proposal changes the ordinance so that fines of $500 per day begin when a code enforcement officer gives a grower or landowner a 72-hour notice to abate. Those daily fines increase to $1,000 when a nuisance abatement hearing notice is posted.
Measure H also affects what needs to be proved at the nuisance abatement hearing. If approved, code enforcement would only need to prove the violation existed when the hearing date was set instead of proving the violation still existed.
MacKenzie said Measure H only addresses code enforcement’s concerns and not others’ issues over Measure A enforcement. The burden of proof shouldn’t be on the cited individual, she said.
“Voting for H, voting against H, only has to do with what we think are attempts by code enforcement to rewrite the enforcement mechanisms to match what they did last year, which is what they weren’t supposed to do,” MacKenzie said.
Smith said Measure A has made a big difference in limiting large commercial grows and Measure H will streamline the process and make it more effective. He said the measure would shorten up loopholes and make it easier to collect fees and fines.
During the first year of enforcement, county staff issued 894 citations and saw to the eradication of 34,556 plants. Specific enforcement costs were identified at $375,996. At the same time, the county collected only 6 percent of the $2.93 million in issued fines, or $171,175.
Smith said some people facing fees and fines may seek to delay hearings until after they harvest plants.
“Oftentimes, they don’t leave forwarding addresses,” he said.
MacKenzie said many people facing citations sought hearings early in the growing season but never got them. At least 62 people facing citations sought hearings, but only 19 were heard, she said.
The county reported in January that it was prepared to hold hearings for 44 cases, but 25 were resolved when the grower came into compliance. The county lost only one hearing, when a code-enforcement officer was unavailable to testify.
While the issue isn’t as momentous as the underlying cultivation rules, Smith believe county voters will respond as they did in 2014 when they approved Measure A by a 20-percent margin.
“I would hope that the voting public of Butte County recognizes that this is not an attempt to overly regulate or resist people’s opportunity to grow medical marijuana,” Smith said.
While voters will decide these two issues in June, they will likely have more expansive choices in November. In addition to a statewide proposition that would legalize recreational use of cannabis, the Inland Cannabis Farmers Association has circulated petitions to put a measure on the ballot that would enact full cannabis regulation from seed to dispensing. The proposed ordinance draws on the state’s Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act and includes a detailed zoning chart showing what activity is allowable in any given area. Personal and caregiver grows of up to 500 square feet would also be allowed.
MacKenzie said Measure A fails to meet patient access needs and has led to arbitrary enforcement. People should still be able to grow their own medicine, but different regulations would allow people to access medicinal cannabis cultivated and developed by a professional.
“A box saying everyone should grow their own isn’t the solution to patient access,” she said.
MacKenzie said it would save the county money to have the good actors in the cannabis field participating in a regulatory structure. That system, including program and permit fees, would take the burden of finding large rogue grows off the taxpayer and on to cannabis farmers. The county could see $2.8 million in reduced enforcement costs and new permit fees.
“The majority of the cannabis community is absolutely antithetical to rogue grows,” MacKenzie said.
She noted the proposal is a shallow framework that is set up for the county to provide greater detail. The cannabis farmers association has met with county officials about the proposal and seeks to work collectively.
“The answer is to go back to a collaborative approach,” MacKenzie said.
Smith noted the world has been changing about cannabis regulation and use. While Measure A has seen successful, he said it’s good government to go back to the drawing board.
“It will be up to us to find a solution and change with it,” Smith said.
While changes are imminent, Smith said the public needs to have a discussion about some of the risks of cannabis, including the process to concentrate marijuana into butane honey oil which has led to fires and injuries. He said the county administration has sought to get along with growers, but also respond to the concerns of non-growing residents."
“Do we need to regulate it?” Smith asked. “Absolutely, because it can be a nuisance.”
Reach reporter Ryan Olson at 896-7763 and facebook.com/NorCalJustice.
"Butte County’s marijuana measures a portent of change
By Ryan Olson, Chico Enterprise-Record
Oroville >> There is some agreement among people on both sides of the two marijuana-related issues going before voters June 7.
Proponents and opponents of Measures G and H recognize that the two items are modifications to current ordinances that will remain in effect regardless of the outcome. However, both sides see a changing statewide attitude to marijuana and the upcoming vote may be a sign of things to come.
“This could be a measuring stick to determine the will of the people,” retired Butte County Sheriff Jerry Smith said. Smith is backing the two measures.
Jessica MacKenzie, executive director of the Inland Cannabis Farmers Association, said the measures were a stalling tactic ahead of changes coming this fall. She endorsed a collaborative process instead of only listening to county code enforcement officials as the Board of Supervisors did when backing the changes that became known as Measures G and H.
“The answer is to go back to a collaborative approach,” MacKenzie said.
Supervisors initially approved the changes on Jan. 12, but the cannabis farmers association submitted two petitions of about 13,000 each to have the board either repeal the changes or submit them to voters On March 8, the board agreed to put them on the June 7 ballot.
Measure G would amend the county’s right-to-farm ordinance to expressly state that marijuana cultivation isn’t an agricultural operation under county rules. Both sides agree that the change is relatively minor for now, especially because the right-to-farm already respects federal laws that prohibit marijuana.
MacKenzie said the only reason to include the change was to poke an stick at the cannabis community.
“They’re setting up a second class of farmer,” she said.
At the time, county officials said they sought the change out of an abundance of caution. A state law approved last year recognizes cannabis as an agricultural commodity, and the local change was intended to clarify county rules.
There is also a concern that allowing cannabis under the ordinance could undermine the marijuana cultivation ordinance as the right-to-farm rules limit when proper farming operations may be deemed a nuisance under county regulations.
Smith said including cannabis in the right to farm could eliminate the ability of residents to file nuisance complaints.
Smith said the restriction was appropriate, especially because the county supervisors have heard from constituents in the traditional agricultural industry who were opposed to including cannabis in the right to farm.
One argument against Measure G is that the county would have to either amend the right-to-farm ordinance a second time or face a lawsuit if the federal government changes its stance on marijuana. MacKenzie said the effort was an unnecessary expense.
“It’s not a lot, but why do it at all?” she asked.
Smith said the law ebbs and flows over time and it’s part of the process to amend laws over time. If the county wants to change the law in the future, it could.
The biggest disagreement is over Measure H, which would amend the cultivation ordinance approved by voters in 2014 as Measure A. Measure A set growing dimensions based on lot size, ranging from 50 square-feet for lots between a half-acre and 5 acres to 150 square-feet for properties larger than 10 acres.
While Measure H clarifies allowable garden sizes in specific conditions, much of the focus has been on the proposal to combine the citation and nuisance abatement process into one. The proposal changes the ordinance so that fines of $500 per day begin when a code enforcement officer gives a grower or landowner a 72-hour notice to abate. Those daily fines increase to $1,000 when a nuisance abatement hearing notice is posted.
Measure H also affects what needs to be proved at the nuisance abatement hearing. If approved, code enforcement would only need to prove the violation existed when the hearing date was set instead of proving the violation still existed.
MacKenzie said Measure H only addresses code enforcement’s concerns and not others’ issues over Measure A enforcement. The burden of proof shouldn’t be on the cited individual, she said.
“Voting for H, voting against H, only has to do with what we think are attempts by code enforcement to rewrite the enforcement mechanisms to match what they did last year, which is what they weren’t supposed to do,” MacKenzie said.
Smith said Measure A has made a big difference in limiting large commercial grows and Measure H will streamline the process and make it more effective. He said the measure would shorten up loopholes and make it easier to collect fees and fines.
During the first year of enforcement, county staff issued 894 citations and saw to the eradication of 34,556 plants. Specific enforcement costs were identified at $375,996. At the same time, the county collected only 6 percent of the $2.93 million in issued fines, or $171,175.
Smith said some people facing fees and fines may seek to delay hearings until after they harvest plants.
“Oftentimes, they don’t leave forwarding addresses,” he said.
MacKenzie said many people facing citations sought hearings early in the growing season but never got them. At least 62 people facing citations sought hearings, but only 19 were heard, she said.
The county reported in January that it was prepared to hold hearings for 44 cases, but 25 were resolved when the grower came into compliance. The county lost only one hearing, when a code-enforcement officer was unavailable to testify.
While the issue isn’t as momentous as the underlying cultivation rules, Smith believe county voters will respond as they did in 2014 when they approved Measure A by a 20-percent margin.
“I would hope that the voting public of Butte County recognizes that this is not an attempt to overly regulate or resist people’s opportunity to grow medical marijuana,” Smith said.
While voters will decide these two issues in June, they will likely have more expansive choices in November. In addition to a statewide proposition that would legalize recreational use of cannabis, the Inland Cannabis Farmers Association has circulated petitions to put a measure on the ballot that would enact full cannabis regulation from seed to dispensing. The proposed ordinance draws on the state’s Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act and includes a detailed zoning chart showing what activity is allowable in any given area. Personal and caregiver grows of up to 500 square feet would also be allowed.
MacKenzie said Measure A fails to meet patient access needs and has led to arbitrary enforcement. People should still be able to grow their own medicine, but different regulations would allow people to access medicinal cannabis cultivated and developed by a professional.
“A box saying everyone should grow their own isn’t the solution to patient access,” she said.
MacKenzie said it would save the county money to have the good actors in the cannabis field participating in a regulatory structure. That system, including program and permit fees, would take the burden of finding large rogue grows off the taxpayer and on to cannabis farmers. The county could see $2.8 million in reduced enforcement costs and new permit fees.
“The majority of the cannabis community is absolutely antithetical to rogue grows,” MacKenzie said.
She noted the proposal is a shallow framework that is set up for the county to provide greater detail. The cannabis farmers association has met with county officials about the proposal and seeks to work collectively.
“The answer is to go back to a collaborative approach,” MacKenzie said.
Smith noted the world has been changing about cannabis regulation and use. While Measure A has seen successful, he said it’s good government to go back to the drawing board.
“It will be up to us to find a solution and change with it,” Smith said.
While changes are imminent, Smith said the public needs to have a discussion about some of the risks of cannabis, including the process to concentrate marijuana into butane honey oil which has led to fires and injuries. He said the county administration has sought to get along with growers, but also respond to the concerns of non-growing residents."
“Do we need to regulate it?” Smith asked. “Absolutely, because it can be a nuisance.”
Reach reporter Ryan Olson at 896-7763 and facebook.com/NorCalJustice.
Last edited:
