Truth Seeker
New Member
More than a year after the county adopted its first ordinance regulating medical marijuana grows, Shasta County officials are trying to push the Board of Supervisors to tighten those restrictions, possibly by banning outdoor grows altogether and making penalties more severe for pot violations.
The push comes about a week after the directors of the Medicine Man Collective Spiritual Center Corp. filed a lawsuit against the county over its pot rules, saying they're too restrictive and rob legitimate pot businesses of income. Medicine Man was the unincorporated county's only dispensary before supervisors closed it down several years ago when they passed a moratorium on dispensaries.
The board on Tuesday will receive a status update on the ordinance they adopted in December 2011. Among other things, that ordinance limited indoor grows to detached, nonresidential structures and put caps on outdoor grows. Depending on the size of the parcel, those were held to maximums of between 60 square feet and 360 square feet.
Shasta County officials apparently aren't satisfied with the outcome of that ordinance, though. Citing complaints about local pot grows' smell, environmental effects and potential danger, they recommend in a board report that supervisors consider amending the ordinance, possibly by banning outdoor gardens and making pot violations misdemeanors instead of infractions.
Rodney Jones, an outspoken medical cannabis advocate from Anderson who did investigative work for the Medicine Man lawsuit, said this week's move is another example of the county's hostile attitude toward legitimate patients.
"They're taking medical patients and making criminals out of medical patients," he said Sunday.
Jones said banning outdoor grows makes it far more difficult for legal patients to get enough cannabis, let alone obtain a high-quality product.
The indoor lights, heating and humidity control will make the cost of growing soar, he said.
"As far as monetary-wise, it costs four times more to produce a product that's not as good as being able to just throw a seed in the ground and let mother nature do what she does," Jones said.
But local anti-drug advocates – who have long complained at supervisors meetings that the county isn't doing enough to protect residents from the negative effects of marijuana – seemed hopeful about the possibility that the county will crack down on pot grows.
"We would like to show support of the county's need for enforcement of the current ordinances and possibly move to a more restrictive ordinance," said Cathy Grindstaff, project director of A Sobering Choice, in an email about this week's board meeting.
The medical marijuana controversy in Shasta County largely stems from conflicting state and federal laws.
While Proposition 215 legalized medical marijuana use in the state in 1996, federal crackdowns in recent years have triggered many jurisdictions to limit or shut down pot operations altogether, including Shasta County, which banned pot shops in for the first time in 2010 and introduced growing restrictions in 2011.
The county's recommendations – if approved by the board – will be studied by county planners and then put before the Planning Commission before coming back to supervisors for official adoption.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: redding.com
Author: Alayna Shulman
The push comes about a week after the directors of the Medicine Man Collective Spiritual Center Corp. filed a lawsuit against the county over its pot rules, saying they're too restrictive and rob legitimate pot businesses of income. Medicine Man was the unincorporated county's only dispensary before supervisors closed it down several years ago when they passed a moratorium on dispensaries.
The board on Tuesday will receive a status update on the ordinance they adopted in December 2011. Among other things, that ordinance limited indoor grows to detached, nonresidential structures and put caps on outdoor grows. Depending on the size of the parcel, those were held to maximums of between 60 square feet and 360 square feet.
Shasta County officials apparently aren't satisfied with the outcome of that ordinance, though. Citing complaints about local pot grows' smell, environmental effects and potential danger, they recommend in a board report that supervisors consider amending the ordinance, possibly by banning outdoor gardens and making pot violations misdemeanors instead of infractions.
Rodney Jones, an outspoken medical cannabis advocate from Anderson who did investigative work for the Medicine Man lawsuit, said this week's move is another example of the county's hostile attitude toward legitimate patients.
"They're taking medical patients and making criminals out of medical patients," he said Sunday.
Jones said banning outdoor grows makes it far more difficult for legal patients to get enough cannabis, let alone obtain a high-quality product.
The indoor lights, heating and humidity control will make the cost of growing soar, he said.
"As far as monetary-wise, it costs four times more to produce a product that's not as good as being able to just throw a seed in the ground and let mother nature do what she does," Jones said.
But local anti-drug advocates – who have long complained at supervisors meetings that the county isn't doing enough to protect residents from the negative effects of marijuana – seemed hopeful about the possibility that the county will crack down on pot grows.
"We would like to show support of the county's need for enforcement of the current ordinances and possibly move to a more restrictive ordinance," said Cathy Grindstaff, project director of A Sobering Choice, in an email about this week's board meeting.
The medical marijuana controversy in Shasta County largely stems from conflicting state and federal laws.
While Proposition 215 legalized medical marijuana use in the state in 1996, federal crackdowns in recent years have triggered many jurisdictions to limit or shut down pot operations altogether, including Shasta County, which banned pot shops in for the first time in 2010 and introduced growing restrictions in 2011.
The county's recommendations – if approved by the board – will be studied by county planners and then put before the Planning Commission before coming back to supervisors for official adoption.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: redding.com
Author: Alayna Shulman
