Comments on: Kevin Hoover: Protect Arcata’s Fair Cannabis Laws From Threats And Abuse – October 4, 2011

By: kevpod

kevpod — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:22:59 +0000

Oops.

By: Jessica Arnold

Jessica Arnold — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:13:12 +0000

“Permits will be affected by a recent court decision involving Long Beach’s permitting.”

Yes… at the Arcata City Council meeting last night, it was decided that the Planning Commission will continue processing permit applications, but will make no final decisions until time has passed and council members reassess the continually evolving legal atmosphere surrounding medical Cannabis.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:41:35 +0000

Permits will be affected by a recent court decision involving Long Beach’s permitting.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/05/BA261LDSIS.DTL

This decision does not affect a California city’s ability to impose or waive proximity limitations on these businesses, only the ability to issue permits.

By: Jessica Arnold

Jessica Arnold — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:13:36 +0000

There will be a speaker tonight at HSU presenting his research on “The Carbon Footprint of Indoor Cannabis Production.” Evan Mills, PhD research scientist from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, has estimated that 1% of TOTAL US electricity production goes to indoor-grown pot, and 3% of California’s TOTAL electricity produced supplies indoor grows.

(more info about the talk here: http://www.schatzlab.org/education/speaker_series.html )

As we are charting new territory with local regulations for medical Cannabis cultivation, we can justify our actions by standing firm in Humboldt’s tradition of protecting our environment. By permitting and regulating dispensaries and gardens, we will have access to data that is currently difficult to obtain because of the clandestine nature of most grow ops. Then we can begin to have more open and objective conversations about what practices are best for everyone.

Jessica Arnold
HSU Graduate Student
Energy, Environment, & Society program

By: LindaAnne

LindaAnne — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:20:31 +0000

thank you Kevin, for common sense.
The feds are pressing and if municipalities give up to the intimidation, the black market will excel.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:39:59 +0000

I found the story about 40 Acres. They need a “dispensary permit” to operate in the commercial zone within Berkeley city limits.

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/09/29/rapid-growth-for-cannabis-collective-raises-concern/

The situation as portrayed in this article appears quite different than the problems in Arcata considering the advertisement and active recruitment.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:28:35 +0000

Berkeley has the opposite approach where they only license collectives in residential zones. Their problem collective is “40 Acres” which operates in a commercial zone.

This zoning seems a bit arbitrary to me rather than orderly and well planned.

By: Mark Sailors

Mark Sailors — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:10:38 +0000

Or they could repeal the unenforceable, unconstitutional ordinance and let prop 215 and the MMPA be the guide for legality. They could walk away from all cannabis patients and gardens that provide doctors recommendations.
They could require no more for a retail collective or retail co-op than is required for any other retail business.
If people are destroying housing to grow, there are plenty of other remedies that don’t involve that actual pot, like felony vandalism and other charges that could be brought to bear on “over the top” situations.

I also seem to remember telling the council, plan co, and city staff that they could be held legally liable for licensing these grow YEARS ago.