Katelyn Baker
Well-Known Member
Even before voters passed Proposition 64, Yolo County officials braced for the changes that would come with it, crafting an ordinance to retain local control as statewide marijuana rules shift.
Their work continued this week as Yolo supervisors passed a ban on all forms of non-medical – or recreational – marijuana commercial activities in the county's unincorporated areas.
However, the board's approval was not unanimous.
Supervisor Don Saylor argued that there was little point to the "far-reaching" interim ordinance as the county has until January 2018 to decide local regulations on the commercial aspects of marijuana before state rules take effect.
Assistant County Counsel Carrie Scarlata explained this during Tuesday's board meeting.
"If a local agency does not have a restriction or a prohibition on those commercial activities involving non-medical marijuana, an operator would be eligible to get a license from the state and we wouldn't be able to control that," she said.
The loss of local control of this budding industry seemed to be the greatest concern for supervisors in favor of the ordinance, which would essentially buy them some time.
"The intent is to give us time to work and make a decision of what we want to do we don't know how long this will take," stated Supervisor Jim Provenza. "We may have a decision by January 1st, we may not, but this essentially preserves the status quo while we're going through that process."
Likewise, Supervisor Oscar Villegas agreed that protecting local control was a top priority.
"I think this is an important step for Yolo County to sort of inoculate itself from state policy," he said. "We have to preserve local control and this is one of those steps that we need to take in terms of maximizing the opportunity for local control."
Specifically, the state licensing system would govern "the commercial cultivation, testing and distribution of nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacturing of non-medical marijuana products," according to the county ordinance.
The ordinance also states that the board finds that commercial cultivation of non-medical marijuana "may adversely affect the health, safety and well-being of the County residents and have the potential for adverse impacts on the County arising from the risks associated with the commercial cultivation, production, storage, processing, manufacture, dispensing, delivery, distribution, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation, provision, or sale of marijuana or marijuana products."
However, Saylor emphasized that many of these activities are happening regardless.
In recent months, the county staff have taken time to learn from medical marijuana growers in the region, making sure both parties are on the same page. These talks, to some extent, helped craft the county's interim ordinance regarding medical cultivation. However, the commercial aspects are uncharted territory for counties statewide, sparking debates among supervisors and the communities they serve.
In Yolo County, a majority of voters were in favor of Proposition 64, Saylor highlighted. To him, these results are "a clear indication to me that our communities are interested in sensible policy."
And for Saylor, there is more than enough time to dive into the subject without an extensive ban.
"It is unnecessary for us to have a prohibition at this point in time," he said. "By simply not licensing or permitting these operations we are already in effect not allowing them to proceed.
"The state rules will not come into effect until January 2018 so there is plenty of time for us to deliver the actions that we need to do to have a responsible, sensible approach to this topic," Saylor concluded.
To Provenza, it was not that simple.
He listed numerous concerns related to the industry, including marijuana's effects on agricultural land, long-term health as well as marketing to children.
"I'm concerned about marijuana that's aimed at children and what measures are we going to take to protect them," Provenza said.
Saylor agreed that these were valid topics to explore, but still voted against the interim ordinance, resulting in a 3-1 vote. Supervisor Matt Rexroad was absent.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Ban Placed On Commercial Marijuana Activities In Yolo County
Author: Sarah Dowling
Contact: (530) 406-6201
Photo Credit: Sarah Dowling
Website: Daily Democrat
Their work continued this week as Yolo supervisors passed a ban on all forms of non-medical – or recreational – marijuana commercial activities in the county's unincorporated areas.
However, the board's approval was not unanimous.
Supervisor Don Saylor argued that there was little point to the "far-reaching" interim ordinance as the county has until January 2018 to decide local regulations on the commercial aspects of marijuana before state rules take effect.
Assistant County Counsel Carrie Scarlata explained this during Tuesday's board meeting.
"If a local agency does not have a restriction or a prohibition on those commercial activities involving non-medical marijuana, an operator would be eligible to get a license from the state and we wouldn't be able to control that," she said.
The loss of local control of this budding industry seemed to be the greatest concern for supervisors in favor of the ordinance, which would essentially buy them some time.
"The intent is to give us time to work and make a decision of what we want to do we don't know how long this will take," stated Supervisor Jim Provenza. "We may have a decision by January 1st, we may not, but this essentially preserves the status quo while we're going through that process."
Likewise, Supervisor Oscar Villegas agreed that protecting local control was a top priority.
"I think this is an important step for Yolo County to sort of inoculate itself from state policy," he said. "We have to preserve local control and this is one of those steps that we need to take in terms of maximizing the opportunity for local control."
Specifically, the state licensing system would govern "the commercial cultivation, testing and distribution of nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacturing of non-medical marijuana products," according to the county ordinance.
The ordinance also states that the board finds that commercial cultivation of non-medical marijuana "may adversely affect the health, safety and well-being of the County residents and have the potential for adverse impacts on the County arising from the risks associated with the commercial cultivation, production, storage, processing, manufacture, dispensing, delivery, distribution, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation, provision, or sale of marijuana or marijuana products."
However, Saylor emphasized that many of these activities are happening regardless.
In recent months, the county staff have taken time to learn from medical marijuana growers in the region, making sure both parties are on the same page. These talks, to some extent, helped craft the county's interim ordinance regarding medical cultivation. However, the commercial aspects are uncharted territory for counties statewide, sparking debates among supervisors and the communities they serve.
In Yolo County, a majority of voters were in favor of Proposition 64, Saylor highlighted. To him, these results are "a clear indication to me that our communities are interested in sensible policy."
And for Saylor, there is more than enough time to dive into the subject without an extensive ban.
"It is unnecessary for us to have a prohibition at this point in time," he said. "By simply not licensing or permitting these operations we are already in effect not allowing them to proceed.
"The state rules will not come into effect until January 2018 so there is plenty of time for us to deliver the actions that we need to do to have a responsible, sensible approach to this topic," Saylor concluded.
To Provenza, it was not that simple.
He listed numerous concerns related to the industry, including marijuana's effects on agricultural land, long-term health as well as marketing to children.
"I'm concerned about marijuana that's aimed at children and what measures are we going to take to protect them," Provenza said.
Saylor agreed that these were valid topics to explore, but still voted against the interim ordinance, resulting in a 3-1 vote. Supervisor Matt Rexroad was absent.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Ban Placed On Commercial Marijuana Activities In Yolo County
Author: Sarah Dowling
Contact: (530) 406-6201
Photo Credit: Sarah Dowling
Website: Daily Democrat
