Your [medical cannabis] ordinance does not address ways of distinguishing between direct access gardens, where cannabis is grown for specific patients, and gardens that have paperwork on the wall but really just sell the cannabis. It also does nothing to ensure that gardeners who take advantage of patients or forge documents are punished. It certainly does nothing to reduce the price of cannabis either.
In regards to fire safety, you could have just stipulated that gardens must either comply with the load-capacity of the existing electrical output of the building, or that they modify the building, according to codes, to accommodate larger usage. Limiting the amounts of cannabis that patients may grow is in direct conflict with California's Health and Safety Code, the Guidelines of our Attorney General's Office, and with more than one high court ruling. It's also mean spirited to punish qualified patients for the actions of black-market growers!
The stipulation that prevents your local dispensaries from procuring cannabis at various locations is also in conflict with our Attorney General's guidelines. Collectives and Cooperatives are SUPPOSED to receive all their cannabis from within their membership, just as they may only dispense cannabis to their members.
In addition, your square footage and wattage limitations for both individual and collective indoor cultivation of cannabis will both limit the amount that any patient may cultivate to well below the amount that most patients require, and it will limit the number of patients that may live within Arcata (assuming they receive their medicine here as well).
I do this math all the time in court, and I can tell you that your assumptions about yields are NOT founded in science or cultivation experience (but they are rather well-suited for shoving back up the hole you pulled them out of to begin with).
Lastly, I think the implementation of this ordinance is in direct conflict with Ordinance No. 1276 (Title V, Chapter 10 of the Arcata Municipal Code). There are multiple conflicts here, but if you read them both in the same sitting, I'm sure you'll find plenty of them. It's ironic, but the people this ordinance will hurt the most are the patients living here. You are forcing them to choose between buying from the existing dispensaries (four, then three, then two for the entire city population), or moving out of town. Because they certainly won't be able to grow their own cannabis here anymore. You didn't even need an ordinance to deal with the black-market growers. They were always illegal, and could be investigated by law enforcement any time a neighbor made an anonymous call.
I guess you just can't stand the thought of people growing it cheaply and legally, in their own homes. After all, most of your businesses are supported by the black market production of cannabis. I can see how allowing patients to have direct access to their cannabis might threaten the local economy a bit. Or did you not consider that when people were promoting this "solution" to the problems that grow houses produce?
Is there some reason that law enforcement couldn't respond to these obviously illegal operations before now? They certainly have time to harass innocent patients at their leisure. Maybe they just needed another reason to ask for more money.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Arcata Eye
Author: Jason Browne
Contact: Arcata Eye
Copyright: 2008 Arcata Eye
Website: Pity The Ill-Served Arcata Cannabis Patient
In regards to fire safety, you could have just stipulated that gardens must either comply with the load-capacity of the existing electrical output of the building, or that they modify the building, according to codes, to accommodate larger usage. Limiting the amounts of cannabis that patients may grow is in direct conflict with California's Health and Safety Code, the Guidelines of our Attorney General's Office, and with more than one high court ruling. It's also mean spirited to punish qualified patients for the actions of black-market growers!
The stipulation that prevents your local dispensaries from procuring cannabis at various locations is also in conflict with our Attorney General's guidelines. Collectives and Cooperatives are SUPPOSED to receive all their cannabis from within their membership, just as they may only dispense cannabis to their members.
In addition, your square footage and wattage limitations for both individual and collective indoor cultivation of cannabis will both limit the amount that any patient may cultivate to well below the amount that most patients require, and it will limit the number of patients that may live within Arcata (assuming they receive their medicine here as well).
I do this math all the time in court, and I can tell you that your assumptions about yields are NOT founded in science or cultivation experience (but they are rather well-suited for shoving back up the hole you pulled them out of to begin with).
Lastly, I think the implementation of this ordinance is in direct conflict with Ordinance No. 1276 (Title V, Chapter 10 of the Arcata Municipal Code). There are multiple conflicts here, but if you read them both in the same sitting, I'm sure you'll find plenty of them. It's ironic, but the people this ordinance will hurt the most are the patients living here. You are forcing them to choose between buying from the existing dispensaries (four, then three, then two for the entire city population), or moving out of town. Because they certainly won't be able to grow their own cannabis here anymore. You didn't even need an ordinance to deal with the black-market growers. They were always illegal, and could be investigated by law enforcement any time a neighbor made an anonymous call.
I guess you just can't stand the thought of people growing it cheaply and legally, in their own homes. After all, most of your businesses are supported by the black market production of cannabis. I can see how allowing patients to have direct access to their cannabis might threaten the local economy a bit. Or did you not consider that when people were promoting this "solution" to the problems that grow houses produce?
Is there some reason that law enforcement couldn't respond to these obviously illegal operations before now? They certainly have time to harass innocent patients at their leisure. Maybe they just needed another reason to ask for more money.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Arcata Eye
Author: Jason Browne
Contact: Arcata Eye
Copyright: 2008 Arcata Eye
Website: Pity The Ill-Served Arcata Cannabis Patient
