SoHum Parlance

Thanks for the prescient warning Eric.
 

Prescient warning? What other kind of warning is there?
 

Sounds unlikely to me. Someone should check the airline bookings (I assume these guys will fly in and not convoy from SF) to see if any empty seats exist in the crucial period.

The 10th amendment claim, however, just in case the DEA really is coming, is based in the findings of the Legislature when passing SB 420 which included a consitutional claim. (9th? 10th?) I don't know why this has not come up in Federal prosecutions but suspect its because Fed PDs think the prospect of the Fed gov not having authority over something as likely to work as the fringed flags theory, or the driver's license signing theory.

I also predict that in the event this unlikely raid scenario actually takes place it will cause a huge backlash against the Feds.

However, we are considering installing extra phone lines and taking on additional office help to deal with the flood of new clients. (NOT)
 

Ed - I think they've been able to avoid it because the prosecutions have been against distributors, not patients, except where there was evidence of non-215 cultivation and distribution. Anyway, the only case to reach the Supreme Court eliminated the common law defense of necessity, but the validity of 215 against federal law has not, to my knowledge, been decided.
 

Eric - I take issue with your "greed" description. The demand for medical marijuana is huge, and it seems that most city dwellers can't grow their own. Hence it falls to us rural dwellers to make up the difference. People who have not kept up with the developments in the law may not realize that sales of medical marijuana can be entirely legal so long as they are between 1) caregivers and their patients, 2) patients and/or caregivers who are acting to cultivate cooperatively. In other words someone up here acting cooperatively with a club in SF can be legally growing quite a bit of marijuana. (In theory enough to supply the rest of the cooperative club, whose members could number in the hundreds). There is a limit on these sales, but it is not in terms of amount of marijuana or total value of the transactions, but rather the law states that such sales may not result in a profit. However the price can include compensation for not only the costs of raising the marijuana but also the value of the services of the raiser.

Obviously none of this gives anyone the right to make structural changes in someone else's building, or to do unpermitted wiring for indoor grows etc. On the other hand I'm fairly certain that Arcata's authorities have been indulging in hysterical exaggeration of the number of grow houses in the city which involve property damage or code violations endangering the structures. Their statements have been totally unsubstantiated and are examples of the propaganda which leads to unprovoked wars. I think they should be called to account for these statements, and if the statements prove to be false, dismissed from office.
 

The DEA doesn't have to come. All they need to do is spread the rumor that they are coming. It will 1) discourage some small growers and move them out; 2) make those left more paranoid and more careful about their exposure; 3) make the feds look like they are in charge; 4)get everyone here talking about the problem so that maybe someone will finally DO SOMETHING about it to legalize it.
 

Eric if the DEA came in here to get things under control wouldn't that be comparable to what happened between Wallace and the Feds in Alabama? Don't the feds have to get an invite from local government before they can just decide to do a sting or something?
 

Don't the feds have to get an invite from local government before they can just decide to do a sting or something?

No, not if federal law is being enforced. But the protocol is to communicate and coordinate.
 

Ed - We both know there are commercial growers using 215 as a cloak. How widespread is a legitimate point of contention, but everybody I know in Arcata says it's a problem and can identify grow houses in pretty much every neighborhood. One person recently told me that the 1 in 7 estimate is very conservative.

As to the demand, there is a great deal of growing in the city areas. There was even before 215. It's safer, because authorities don't look for it, and it's not quite as noticeable to neighbors as the suburbs. During the 1980s I knew one grower on Clayton Street in the upper Haight who climbed a telephone pole in the the middle of the night to bypass a meter. They grew in their living room, which they locked off while having big parties taking up the rest of the house. They made their money and then retired, but there are plenty of "indoor gardening" businesses throughout the Bay Area to suggest a demand - though I imagine there are those who grow around here who prefer to walk into businesses a few hundred miles away where they won't be recognized.
 

Only if the Feds trusts the locals - which is obviously not the case here otherwise why would there be allowed such blatant disregard for the law (commercial grows) and what 215 allows.
 

Legalize it. Commercialize it. Tax it. Be done with it.

Sorry for the broken record sentiment.
 

I'm with the monkey.
 

Only if the Feds trusts the locals - which is obviously not the case here otherwise why would there be allowed such blatant disregard for the law (commercial grows) and what 215 allows.

Well, there's also the question of whether a local agency can assist a federal law enforcement against state law. Again, the 10th Amendment may come into play.
 

We both know there are commercial growers using 215 as a cloak

I'm not sure we do both know this because I'm not clear at this point how to distinguish a "commercial grower" from a "coop grower." Someone growing a lot could be either - the issues would be whether the grower has a 215, is affiliated with a coop, and is making a profit. No 215 (or caregiver) = illegal, no coop = illegal if growing more than personal medical use, profit = illegal. These are not things that can be determined by walking down the street and smelling marijuana, or even by seeing the size of the operations. They are essentially documentary requirements like having a driver's license, and you need to ask for the documents to find out if they exist. The anecdotal information about grow house numbers doesn't tell us anything about legality of the grows, even were it correct about the number of the grows, which I doubt.

So when the Arcadians identify a "problem" from the legal standpoint, it is not the number of grow houses, in terms of marijuana law. It may be a social problem in terms of displaced workers (doubtful) or students (more likely), and, of course, there may be a variety of illegalities such as illegal wiring, structure changes, or lack of legal status - but you can't not tell if any of these legal problems exist simply by knowing that there are grow houses. Grow houses are not per se illegal.

I've got anecdotal evidence that many urban dwellers feel they cannot grow where they live - unsafe neighborhoods. uncooperative landlords, lack of space etc. How many I have no idea, but the existence of clubs with thousands of members in the aggregate where people pay money for something they could grow for free, suggests that lots of urban residents can't grow at home.

PS I'm with the monkey, also
 

Monkey said. When will monkeys in charge do?
 

come on now, eric,

"One person recently told me that the 1 in 7 estimate is very conservative."

so one person told you? and how is that evidence of anything? did they mention how they arrived at that conclusion?

if heraldo's post is accurate (who knows?) and they have only identified 300 houses with extra-high electric bills, that would seem to suggest that the 1 in 7 figure is wildly exaggerated.

i don't like having big indoor grows in residential areas or the energy use they involve, but the level of hysteria around this is beginning to reach "reefer madness" proportions.

as far as this rumoured d.e.a. operation, it looks to me like a last gasp by the d.e.a., who can see the handwriting on the wall if obama is elected. yes, the feds might actually have to abide by the will of the voters of states like california. along with that, we, the people of california, and of humboldt county, will need to use our own resources to deal with the unintended consequences of the laws we pass. that's only fair.
 

so one person told you? and how is that evidence of anything? did they mention how they arrived at that conclusion?

She lives there.
 

Blame Kevin Hoover for what? We're merely looking at Craigslist rumors. When the mythical DEA agents don't materialize this weekend, Heraldo can claim his publicity scared them away until a later date.

It's a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing
 

Blame it on the greed

That doesn't fly, the average commercial grower makes less per yr than you do Eric.
 

Ed, we are Arcatans, thank you very much. And yes, it is true, there are many, many grow houses in our little college town. I personally know some who fall into the "greed" category, while at the same time they boast 215 cards as well. Some of the greedier even have indentured servants doing the work... really.
 

Eric, isn't it kind of really dumb of you to keep using "Heraldo" as your source of information?

"Heraldo" is just another in a long line of anonymous bloggers and just as vile as any anonymous poster with his/her/their/it/ own personal political agenda that constantly overrides truth and fair play for opponents. Yet here you are using someone who you don't even know anything about as a source of information to pass on to your blog readers. Anons that agree with you get a pass by you on intellectual honesty. Typical Prog ethics in action but what can we expect from Eric, the anti-democracy crusader of Humboldt County.
 

Btw, when I run in 2012, the DEA better get out of Humboldt County because I won't stand for their disabling California voted in legal marijuana law for a second.
 

Jack booted Nazi pigs.
 

I agree with the very cute chimpanzee. That is NOT a monkey.
 

OMFG! In what district does SL reside?
 

"she lives there."

so what? that means her guesstimate is accurate?

again, that's one person's opinion, it's evidence of nothing except that this one person holds that opinion. we have no information on how that opinion was arrived at.

you of all people should understand that.

it's sad to see you buying into the hype and hysteria.
 

Well, I didn't get into the details of the conversation. But I trust the woman's judgment immensely.

What I suggest you do is talk to Arcata residents yourself.
 

Stephen - Heraldo has an excellent record when it comes to the information he posts.
 

Yes, he's excellent when it comes to regurgitating news that will be published in the newspapers tomorrow. As for his other predictions, well, we conveniently forget about his flubs, don't we?
 

Ed, your argument that rural growing is needed because city dwellers can't do it would make sense if "rural" meant outdoors in a field or even greenhouse. But the inside of a residential dwelling isn't any different in rural areas than urban ones.

No, a realistic reason for any assumed demand for indoor "rural" grows is an expected lack of official supervision and greater acceptance of any profit making activity in economically depressed rural areas. Basically, criminality is more tolerated in some rural areas when it provides $ income. You certainly know that very well.
 

i talk to people in arcata all the time, and i spend a fair amount of time there. the idea that 1 in 7 houses there are "grow houses" is truly laughable. this kind of nonsense is often accompanied by the equally laughable claims that arcata is a "hellhole" and the arcata plaza is a dangerous open-air drug market littered with heroin needles, used condoms and human feces.

as far as grow-houses, most of the "evidence" i hear from people is things like "a guy whith dreadlocks moved in down the street and we hardly ever see him" and "houses with blankets or tapestries on the windows instead of curtains." pretty underwhelming stuff. lots of gossip, some obvious jealousy, plenty of assumptions, and not a whole lot of facts.

but maybe we're arguing, in part, about definitions...does a house with one room that has one grow light in it and a 215 prescription to go along with it qualify as a "grow house?" not in my book. but, sure, there's a lot of those situations in arcata, i've seen a few myself.

if by "grow house" you mean that no one really lives there, most every room is packed with marijuana, there are dozens of lights as part of a sophisticated continuous growing operation - the sort of operation that i assume you had in mind when you used the term "greedy" - then the number is much, much lower. i'd be surprised if it was even as much as 1 in 100 by that standard.

personally i don't think anyone should be wasting electricity growing indoors when we have plenty of sun and soil in our beautiful county. but it's the d.e.a. and the failed war on drugs that pushed growing indoors and it's the county and city govenments in other parts of the state which continue to persecute and prosecute 215 patients that have made arcata more attractive by comparison to, say, fresno or something.

i'm sure your friend is sincere in her opinion, but what is it based on, besides gossip and hippie profiling?

i lived through the great crack-cocaine hysteria of the late 80's. during part of this time i lived in an inner-city neighborhood and saw how easily the term "crackhouse" was applied to the residences of poor people and those with lousy landlords. i even had someone point out my own apartment (not knowing i lived there) as a "crackhouse." the evidence they offered? the sheets and tapestries used in place of curtains, lots of young people coming and going, and the ethnicity of some of the roommates and their visitors.

were we crack users or running a "crackhouse?" no, we were students with quite a few friends coming and going, and no money for non-essentials like curtains. gee, i wonder if we might have a few of those in arcata?

don't believe the hype.
 

I lived in Arcata for fifteen years. The street I lived on had a nice mix of couples, students, families, and elderly couples living on it in small older homes built in the 40s and 50s. Over the years as prices climbed for housing the street shifted to almost exclusively college students. I believe there to be 24 residences on that street. The shift left four permanent residents of various make up. In the last three years four of these houses have become rather obvious levels of grow houses. In one example, the one next door to my house, the house kept being sold and bought for a while like every year or two. Then the owner remodeled the house very nicely and sold it for a bit more dough. College student growers moved in and they let the place run down for a bout a year. It looked bad and the neighborhood kids were scared of it. It changed hands and the next grow students coming in kept it much cleaner and looking like a part of the neighborhood. Then it changed hands again and a family bought it. They spruced it up but still grew in it. Now it has a couple in it and the place is still a grow but it is very pristine and clean.

It never worried me that the house might go up in smoke until others started going up that were owned by transient owners or college students. I didn't like it to well when it was unkempt as it drove the value of the neighborhood down and invited other slovenly people to move in. But as long as they kept the place well it didn't faze me. I just knew there was a grow there. Of course my kids were grown by then and not running around the neighborhood anymore.

But the other three on the block are horrible. They all have younger groups of people running them. They have weeds up to the sky in the yard, cracked paint peeling, and crooked garage doors hanging. The once neatly kept up homes are an eyesore.

If Eric wants my identity for further verification of this statement I will email it to him.
 

Stephen - Heraldo has an excellent record when it comes to the information he posts."

Only if you're a Prog, Eric. If not, what Heraldo posts is a clone of what Ken Miller which means it's always heavy on the anti-Palco, anti-cops, anti-Arkley tidbits of gossip and potential news and always light or missing the Other Side of the news, i.e., totally unbalanced. You hypocritically as well as paranoia-mindedly complain about my multiple identities postings as anons. Well, I think we're clearing that up but I always told you I don't post anonymously because I believe in transparency in community spokespeople. Everyone knows who I am. No one knows except a cabal who "Heraldo" is and that means Heraldo could be anybody wanting to manipulate Humboldt politics by interjecting information you can't trace because you can't trace the source. Guess truth in advertising and political activism isn't your forte, counselor?
 

i'm sure your friend is sincere in her opinion, but what is it based on, besides gossip and hippie profiling?

She's a hippie who voted for prop 215.
 

o.k., i guess that's supposed to mean that she's not basing it on hippie profiling but that still doesn't answer the question of how she knows how many houses are "grow houses," does it?
 

Maybe it's not DEA but INS?
 

5:25,

your story sounds credible, your concerns sound reasonable and your experience may not be that unusual. it does seem like the problems cited with the three houses (unmowed grass, peeling paint, disrepair) aren't much different than the usual problems that go along with absentee landlordism, and in other cases just low-income people.

to me, the most serious and pressing issue is the potential fire hazard. if it was up to me, i think anything beyond a 100 square foot (10x10) personal grow should be in an industrial or better yet greenhouse agricultural space, not in residential neighborhoods.

but a d.e.a. sweeps will only ensure that people stay underground, which generally means converted residences which may not be properly wired for this kind of use.

in my opinion, bringing the growing "out into the open" and removing the reason for all the subterfuge is the only approach that will work in the long term.
 

Someone told me that the old Humboldt County sheriff Dennis Lewis' home is now a grow home.
 

Stephen Lewis says:

"Everyone knows who I am. No one knows except a cabal who "Heraldo" is and that means Heraldo could be anybody wanting to manipulate Humboldt politics..."

I think you are on to something here Stephen. Everybody knows you.

I suggest a moment of introspection, Stephen.
 

Could this be it?

George Bush's "Legacy" !
 

I personally know some who fall into the "greed" category, while at the same time they boast 215 cards as well.

Finally we hear from someone in Arcata. What do those people do, who have 215 cards, and fall into the greed catagory that puts them into the catagory?

But the inside of a residential dwelling isn't any different in rural areas than urban ones. anon 4:34

I beg to differ. Rural areas (like Arcata?) have larger residental dwellings, and lower ambient crime rates in the neighborhood on the whole - that's two reasons that many people move to this area. You can still grow outdoors here even in towns (Ukiah, for instance, had so many outdoor grows that they are trying to ban them on the theory that the smell of sweet sensimea is a nuisance. I suggest that downtown Oakland is not a great place to grow outdoors, by contrast.
 

I think the feds will focus on the big guns and we will be surprised with the results and relieved to have them removed. The small grows have their own problems for the city to figure out. Houses are NOT made to grow in. The problems are real.

Indoor is designer weed and has no region based on local strains and terrior to claim. It is time for Humboldt to take back its pride and dignity.
 

I first heard this rumor some time ago. Maybe five or six weeks. Well before the LA and NT Times articles. It's interesting that Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman has been warning that the Feds are going to step in as things have gone too far.
I understand Eds need to smokescreen for his suffering clients but he certainly lays it on thick. Hilarious. Did anyone listen to the environment show tonight? One 60K generator and $30,000 worth of fuel can make a grower $160,000. Thats in three months.
So Ed, how many 215s do they need?
 

Ed has such low standards he is willing to represent a client who pays in the form of coupons to Hometown Buffet.
 

They have weeds up to the sky in the yard, cracked paint peeling, and crooked garage doors hanging. The once neatly kept up homes are an eyesore.

"They HATE us for our freedoms." Like the freedom to not mow your grass, paint your house and straighten out your garage door!

Sheeeesh! some of you people are just sooo ANAL! I'm sure glad I don't live in Arcata next to people like you. Amen.
 

They grew in their living room, which they locked off while having big parties taking up the rest of the house. They made their money and then retired,\\


they didn't retire to sohum and become lawyers did they?
 

Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

so one person told you? and how is that evidence of anything? did they mention how they arrived at that conclusion?

She lives there.

does she do drugs? maybe hit the bottle a little hard? dilusional? just plain stupid?

the LA times says 1 in 7, I find it difficult to believe them or your friend but I tried growing a plant on my window sill while in college and I assume many at HSU will try the same, unsuccessful but statistically correct.
 

7:57, posts like yours represent the attitude which got measure B passed in Mendocino County. Make your arguments but don't try to tell people that they're imagining the problems in their own neighborhood.
 

Derchoadus claims that the Justice Dept. is having a conference at the Riverlodge in Fortuna. Topic, marihuana. He/she says it will be 500 federales. All this on Heraldo's string. Whew, what a relief!?
 

Thank you feds for coming in here to try and clean up the vermin!
 

hmmm,

vermin? isn't that how the nazis referred to the jews?

nice company you're keeping there. i'll take the pot growers over people who refer to other human beings as "vermin."
 

I am not the friend Eric spoke of earlier in the blog. I simply read the blog and responded based on my own experiences. Try again.
 

One 60K generator and $30,000 worth of fuel can make a grower $160,000. Thats in three months.
So Ed, how many 215s do they need?

Like all metaphysical questions it depends upon space and time. Lets say $160,000 is at 4k/lb for ease of calculation. They must raise 40 pounds (probably 50 to 60 but who's counting). According to the Humboldt County BOS they need 33 square feet per pound since 3 months is one indoor harvest (generator = indoor as solar power works outdoors). So they need 1320 square feet indoors to get 40 pounds. That suggests they need 14 recommendations. (This is all based on the price estimates so they could need 21 recommendations)

The legal question after the issue of how many recommendations needed is this: if they gross $160k in 3 months, are they making a profit? If they are then they are breaking the law. I don't know what the payments on land, generator, assistance (you are not tending 1320 - 2000 square feet alone) all come to, or how fast you amortise capital expense.

This answer, however, is subject to People v. Kelly. If this decision becomes law then the limits of SB 420, which are behind the Humboldt County limits, are unconsititutional and the analysis changes.

Then the issue is "current medical needs of the patients involved" and you get into issues of whether the patients are getting a year's supply out of the 3 month garden, or a 3 month supply; how much each individual uses, etc. Given the capital investment this sounds like it would be on-going rather than a once a year garden.

The Federal "standard" for patient use is 6 pounds a year. I believe there are some studies which support the idea that a medical patient who has access to supplies unlimited by cost will use about 6 pounds. This is smoking usage. Eaten marijuana will require up to 20-24 pounds a year presumably - but I don't think there is any hard science to back that up. At 6 pounds a year, the garden would require 7-10 recommendations. Note that it also requires patients able to spend $16-$20k a year on their medicine. That's a given in this question but I'm not sure it is realistic.

Now, let me pose a question to you. What would the price of marijuana be if law enforcement did not make any raids, seizures, or arrests for 1 year? If the price of marijuana fell to $100 a pound would it be practical for someone to invest the sums we have been dealing with? If not, would that not reduce the "problems" associated with marijuana growing?
 

The demand and supply curve for drugs is inelastic. That means that demand will always increase but only minimally go down. Supply is what changes.

It is like gasoline. The consumer HAS to have gasoline and therefore the basic consumption required never changes and we are all captives at the pump. We may cut out excess use of gas and diminish demand that way or with innovation.

This doesn't happen though in the drug market to the same extent. Those stopping smoking, dying, or using will decrease demand only slightly. A habit is a habit is a habit.
 

I forgot. Restricting supply drives up the cost correct and attracts more risk takers into the business and bigger risk takers.
 

Ed, The point you amusingly ignore is that virtually everybody growing pot is making money. Profiting. Selling their product. Everyone. $100 a pond pot would be untrimmed and unsexed in bricks like the old days. Pot will cost more than that when it is legalized and the tobacco companies grow miles of iy in the Central Valley.
 

Um I think that is a misconception myself of people who don't have the skills to go out and get a job for 60 to 150k a year. You don't have to take the risk or the boredom of being a grower if you have the education or experience. It feels a need but only up to so far. Step out of the bubble sonny.
 

Eric, playing up Kevin Hoover as some big victim is really low, even for you.

Kevin Hoover and the Arcata Eye is more the victimizer in this case, invading people's privacy (including intrusive questions about their personal medical care decisions), encouraging vandalism and vigilante tactics and even sending photographers to click at people in their own homes.

If the Eureka Reporter came around Eric's hood and started tripping around people's yards, banging on doors and photoing the residents, he'd be singing a different tune. But the Eye shills for the liberal fascist causes Eric loves so much, so they can do no wrong, right?

Oh yeah, and Kevin Hoover puffs weed, so he's a hypocrite to boot.
 

Ed mentioned "the smell of sweet sensimea"

dont you think you should learn how to spell it Ed?
 

Ed mentioned "the smell of sweet sensimea"

dont you think you should learn how to spell it Ed?

I probably should. I would have learned from your post, but.....you didn't spell it either. I'll make a deal with you. You spell it corrrectly, right here in public on Eric's website, and I'll learn from you. Deal? - ED
 

I was there when Kevin scraped together his last few pennies and borrowed the money to open the Arcata Eye paper. The only thing I remember the area having then was the Times-Standard. While I haven't always agreed with him he did the hard work of being a good reporter. He digs. He reads. He researches. AND he asks hard questions and writes to his own drummer not some special interests. He has had a few chances to expand and kept his vision small so he could stay hands on with the paper. He has won national awards with his reporting. I don't have any problem with his tactics and probably his reasoning considering the growers in these houses are about fifteen feet from other people houses and appear to have no problem invading other people's quality of lives using their need to grow for their own life needs. It is a fair exchange and he made it. He didn't bring the New York Times or CNN or Fox to town. Most likely they just checked in with the local news people when they got into town to do the story. That is the smart way good journalists work.
 

You do realize the world beyond Humboldt doesn't see you the same as the world inside here right.
 

When times are hard, people get hardened.

Life is getting harder in this country and this county . As a result, the people start to turn on each other.
That is partly what we are seeing and it is fed by Kevin Hoover.
The ruling class loves it when the people they rule are at each others throats.

Whether or not there is any validity to the Arcata Eye stance, the DEA is not interested in "saving arcata", but only in their own existance. If the feds show up, they will run roughshod over the will and needs of the community. Perhaps that is what it will take for Arcata to regain it's sense of community.

The word "greed" is being used alot. Where does ambition stop and greed begin? Is Kevin Hoover ambitious---is he greedy?
He is definitely taking himself much too seriously.
 

Hoover admitted calling the NY Times so don't give us this innocent routine Kevin, it doesn't fly. You are trying to get federal goons in here to beat up and arrest people you disagree with politically, it's as simple as that.
 

So what's wrong with calling the New York Times? If it wasn't a story of public interest they wouldn't have come. If you're doing something you have to hide from the press maybe you ought to think about what you're doing.
 

Uh, I masturbate in my home. Frequently. And I don't want the press to know about that. Don't we have a right to our privacy in this country?
 

Not when it causes harm to someone else.
 

Here, in Eureka, the house growers don't have the smarts and/or where-withall- for exhaust systems. The houses reek, it's a joke.

Plus we have our 'tennis-shoes on the line', signaling drug houses, pot or other substances. Really bright.

DEA/IRS, Aw, reminds me of the good ole days. let's bust all the indoor grows and illegal immigrants at the same time. Lots of jobs at Sun Valley Farms, right now.

And Ed, 215 has been abused to the max, and you know it.

Let's see, how much pot will be at the Willy Nelson concert, can't wait.
 

Uh, I masturbate in my home. Frequently. And I don't want the press to know about that. Don't we have a right to our privacy in this country?

I'm calling the New York Times right now!
 

Eric you are totally right - it's GREED that's been the problem. Just like greed was what caused the "reggae war". Greed is a very common human vice.
 

Edit to the above...


And I support prop 215, but it's obviously being abused and needs to be amended
 

if you want to "amend" 215, you'll need to convince 50% +1 of california voters.

since it was an initiative passed by the people, the legislature doesn't get to amend it. they tried that with some of the provisions of senate bill 420, such as putting into place a statewide limit of 6 flowering plants per patient.

that was recently overturned in court on the grounds that the legislature was, in effect, taking away rights that the people voted themselves. lawmakers have a lot of power, but don't get to overturn a vote by the people - we the people get the last word, not our elected officials. that's what ballot propositions (initiative and referendum) are all about...direct democracy.

the legislature had decades to come up with a medical marijuana policy, and they stalled, bickered, and never came to an agreement. if they had crafted a good law in the first place, the people wouldn't have had to go around them with a proposition. they blew it, now it is out of their hands, and in the capable hands of california voters.

so if you want to overturn or revise the basic rights granted by prop 215, yoi'll have to get a new proposition passed by the voters.
 

If Measure B can pass in Mendocino County then such a revision is indeed in the cards.
 

It was in the cards it would come to this when we stopped at 'medical use'. Indeed to say 215 is being 'abused' is funny (asinine funny). It was an end run around the old laws and we all know it. Sure there are people who need to use it that way. But they are a minority and the law wasn't really passed for them. It might have passed with the voters for 'compassionate' reasons- but I don't think those who were drafting the law had anything in mind but a foot in the door. And it worked. Why did we stop (too afraid of losing the money if it were fully legalized?)? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Why was there no law following quickly behind 'medical' that simply acknowledged the tenets on which our country was founded?

Yeah it will never bring in the kind of dough it does, if even only decriminalized. And it won't screw your kids heads on backwards for life- I mean real jobs, living on the amount of money 'workers' do, not being stoned- and it won't bring cops or criminals to us anymore. Or make criminals out of us either.....(few sacrificial lambs, oh well...)

But why not think there will still be an organic market, that RJ Reynold's will never fill? Who do we think we are that we deserve $4,000 for growing a pound of vegetable matter anyway?

If there are any redwoods left for a tourist to come see and we had coffee shops like Amsterdam, this area could have a fine future. Not what the old timers wanted, nor even the 'back to the landers', but logging and diversion have ended fish tourism. Maxxam took too many trees and killed logging. Not gonna be any reason to stop here at all if we don't come up with a new one.

All those 'used to be loggers' will have jobs in restoration- paid for by Maxxam. We got enough coffee shops already, just add weed!

Woke up a dreamer today, didn't I?