Shasta County Supervisors Put Off Decision On Medical

[Jim Finnel]

CA: Hillary Criner discusses medical marijuana issues with Bob Walker outside the Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting at the County Administration Building on Tuesday. The supervisors continued their public hearing on a proposed medical marijuana ordinance after at least two hours of comments. The ordinance restricts how large outdoor grows can be and imposes use permits on collectives.

After listening to hours of public comments that included threats of lawsuits, Shasta County supervisors Tuesday put off voting on proposed new medical marijuana laws for at least two weeks.

The comments will continue at the board's Feb. 23 meeting, where supervisors also will discuss a 45-day moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries proposed by Supervisor Leonard Moty.

About 16 people spoke during the public comment period Tuesday with the majority in disagreement with the regulations outlined in the ordinance.

The ordinance was developed by the county Planning Commission in conjunction with several other county departments after the supervisors turned down a proposed 45-day moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries in November.

Before Tuesday's meeting, about 20 demonstrators stood outside the County Administration Building protesting the ordinance.

One of the medical marijuana advocates' biggest complaints was that no medical marijuana patients or collective owners were consulted during the planning process.

Gina Munday, who runs the Green Heart Collective in Anderson, said the planning department should have talked to those who know about medical marijuana cultivation before crafting the ordinance.

The new ordinance includes zoning and permit requirements, as well as restrictions on how much and where marijuana can be grown. For a parcel 1 acre or smaller, the grow area cannot exceed 60 square feet and for a parcel larger than 1 acre, it cannot exceed 240 square feet, Senior Planner Lisa Lozier said.

"What justifies the 60 square feet?" Munday asked. "Anyone who knows about growing medical marijuana knows I need more room than that to grow my legal allotment."

James Benno, who is part of the Shasta County Collective Members Association, said he considered the regulations unconstitutional.

"We the people have spoken and we are here to stay," he said of the passage of Proposition 215 and Senate Bill 420.

Benno said the supervisors should be removed from office if they pass the ordinance.

Others threatened lawsuits against the county if the ordinance is passed.

"We will take this all the way to the Supreme Court," said Rodney Jones, a former Anderson City Council board member and fire marshal.

Peter Scales, a Jones Valley resident, spoke out against medical marijuana and gave several colorful examples of when he was injured and did not turn to medical marijuana for pain relief.

"America was not built on stoners," he said.

During board discussion, Moty said he didn't think the ordinance was restrictive enough and he thought more discussion needed to happen before a decision was made. He also proposed the board adopt a 45-day moratorium to prevent any collectives from opening in unincorporated areas of the county before an ordinance is adopted.

There are currently no collectives operating in the unincorporated areas of the county, Director of Resource Management Russ Mull said on Friday.

Supervisor Les Baugh asked Lozier if she felt the ordinance addressed the intent of the Compassionate Use Act.

She said yes but conceded she is not a patient or an expert on medical marijuana.

The public hearing will be continued at the Feb. 23 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. The meeting begins at 9 a.m. in the board chambers at the County Administration Building, 1450 Court St. in Redding.


NewsHawk: User: 420 Magazine - Cannabis Culture News & Reviews
Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA)
Copyright: 2010 Record Searchlight
Contact: letters@redding.com
Website: Redding Record Searchlight: Local Redding, California News Delivered Throughout the Day.
Author: Amanda Winters

 

[Medifreddie]

CA: Hillary Criner discusses medical marijuana issues with Bob Walker outside the Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting at the County Administration Building on Tuesday. The supervisors continued their public hearing on a proposed medical marijuana ordinance after at least two hours of comments. The ordinance restricts how large outdoor grows can be and imposes use permits on collectives.

After listening to hours of public comments that included threats of lawsuits, Shasta County supervisors Tuesday put off voting on proposed new medical marijuana laws for at least two weeks.

The comments will continue at the board's Feb. 23 meeting, where supervisors also will discuss a 45-day moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries proposed by Supervisor Leonard Moty.

About 16 people spoke during the public comment period Tuesday with the majority in disagreement with the regulations outlined in the ordinance.

The ordinance was developed by the county Planning Commission in conjunction with several other county departments after the supervisors turned down a proposed 45-day moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries in November.

Before Tuesday's meeting, about 20 demonstrators stood outside the County Administration Building protesting the ordinance.

One of the medical marijuana advocates' biggest complaints was that no medical marijuana patients or collective owners were consulted during the planning process.

Gina Munday, who runs the Green Heart Collective in Anderson, said the planning department should have talked to those who know about medical marijuana cultivation before crafting the ordinance.

The new ordinance includes zoning and permit requirements, as well as restrictions on how much and where marijuana can be grown. For a parcel 1 acre or smaller, the grow area cannot exceed 60 square feet and for a parcel larger than 1 acre, it cannot exceed 240 square feet, Senior Planner Lisa Lozier said.

"What justifies the 60 square feet?" Munday asked. "Anyone who knows about growing medical marijuana knows I need more room than that to grow my legal allotment."

James Benno, who is part of the Shasta County Collective Members Association, said he considered the regulations unconstitutional.

"We the people have spoken and we are here to stay," he said of the passage of Proposition 215 and Senate Bill 420.

Benno said the supervisors should be removed from office if they pass the ordinance.

Others threatened lawsuits against the county if the ordinance is passed.

"We will take this all the way to the Supreme Court," said Rodney Jones, a former Anderson City Council board member and fire marshal.

Peter Scales, a Jones Valley resident, spoke out against medical marijuana and gave several colorful examples of when he was injured and did not turn to medical marijuana for pain relief.

"America was not built on stoners," he said.

During board discussion, Moty said he didn't think the ordinance was restrictive enough and he thought more discussion needed to happen before a decision was made. He also proposed the board adopt a 45-day moratorium to prevent any collectives from opening in unincorporated areas of the county before an ordinance is adopted.

There are currently no collectives operating in the unincorporated areas of the county, Director of Resource Management Russ Mull said on Friday.

Supervisor Les Baugh asked Lozier if she felt the ordinance addressed the intent of the Compassionate Use Act.

She said yes but conceded she is not a patient or an expert on medical marijuana.

The public hearing will be continued at the Feb. 23 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. The meeting begins at 9 a.m. in the board chambers at the County Administration Building, 1450 Court St. in Redding.


NewsHawk: User: 420 Magazine - Cannabis Culture News & Reviews
Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA)
Copyright: 2010 Record Searchlight
Contact: letters@redding.com
Website: Redding Record Searchlight: Local Redding, California News Delivered Throughout the Day.
Author: Amanda Winters

And herein lies the problem. The Powers That Think They Be are trying to draft ordinances regarding something they know little or nothing about. Ms Munday is right. How can someone or somebodies dictate or impose restrictions/limitations in terms of square footage on a garden and still allow the grower's right to the yield of 6 plants?

These Councils are trying to apply their standard planning & building code ordinances to something that is not relevant and are not designed to cover medicinal growing.

Ms Munday is also right in suggesting that qualified medicine growers should have input in aiding Council members in arriving at reasonable and practical determinations in regard to the growing of medicine. For the Council members to reach decisions without a complete understanding of what it is they are making decisions about is unacceptable and I might add, ridiculous.

I applaud the medicinal growing folks for not accepting the Planning Commission's half baked and woefully out of touch ordinances proposal and for demanding a higher level of understanding, commitment and at the very least, some resemblance of compassion. MF

 

[Irish]

...the grower's right to the yield of 6 plants?

Or rather, the patients' right to as many plants as are necessary for the patient's medical regimen, ala the people vs kelley ruling. Collective outdoor grows would be impossible under the square footage rule as well, since this would include multiple gardens on one piece of property. Outdoor gardens need more space simply because one is growing a crop to cover an entire year, not a monthly or quarterly harvest like a well-organized indoor grow would be.

I commend Redding for backing up the bus at the last minute and listening to its citizens, even though it's more an act of self preservation (avoiding a lapful of lawsuits) than actual altruism. Bottom line is always money. Cash, or the threat of that cash being taken away, speaks loud and clear to the capitalist heart. They must have some decent legal council.....