"High Court prohibits municipalities from using Pack v. City of Long Beach to ban dispensaries".

"While municipalities may pass reasonable regulations over the location and operation of medical marijuana collectives, they cannot ban them absolutely," read the brief. "These bans thwart the Legislature's stated objectives of ensuring access to marijuana for the seriously ill persons who need it in a uniform manner throughout the state."

This happened with the assistance of a "brown act" violation( committed by Mike Winkler), where there was NO prosecution, even though it cost 35 or so jobs…They claimed it was resolved in a "public meeting" but somehow Shane still lost his seat on the board…

Every non incumbent challenger had a minimum of 10 signatures rejected.

At this point I am leaning towards ELECTION FRAUD.

I want to see the voter registration cards. I personally know everyone that signed my paper and they are all willing to go to election headquarters to fight for their rights. (Having their legal signatures counted)

"There is a widely held misperception that businesses in the California medical cannabis industry are prohibited from making a profit. In reality, no California law prohibits cannabis-related businesses from making a profit."

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/medical_marijuana_profit_is_allowed_under_californ.php

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80975204/Vasconcellos-SB-420-Ltr

" Itwas
certainly true that
one
side
wanted
to
outlaw
any
profit-making, while
the
other side
didnot
and
would not.
So
right there
and
then
- in
order
not to
lose
our
coherence
as a
working
team
hoping for a broadly supported result and to hold our coalition together
~
we took the
openly
deliberated,
fully
appreciated compromise
way
out:
We
catered
to
neither side
on
thisissue. Instead the Task Force
crafted
the language that appears in Health and
Safety
Codesection
1
1362.765(a)
as
follows:
".
. . nor
shall anything
in this
section authorize
any
individual
or
group
to
cultivate
or
distribute marijuana
for
profit."
It
was so
carefully
crafted
that neither side could claim victory.
In
effect
that issue
was
entirely
left
to whatever otherwise is the status of that issue in California law.
Although
certain members
of our
Task Force
did
advocate
for a
prohibition
on
profit-making,
that
position was
firmly
rejected by the Task Force
hi
favor
of the above compromise language.
The
language
we
fashioned means nothing more
—
nor
less
—
than what
it
explicitly says.
Nothingin
that section prohibits profit. Nothing
in
that section explicitly authorizes
profit,
either.But Imust
point
outthat nobodyisrequiredtoobtainan
"authorization"
from
the
Legislature to
make
a
profit
in
California."

On the one hand, it is certainly a good thing the entire city council voted to promote the inclusion of this measure on the November ballot. It means they all should be replaced, as well as that bright light of a city attorney.

As an owner of a recently purchased electric vehicle, I would like to state an obvious, GLARINGLY OBVIOUS, issue with this prospective new tax. As an early adopter of new technology, I was offered economic incentives to "take a risk" and buy one of these automobiles which are run by rechargeable batteries. At an average cost, delivered here to Arcata, of more than 37,000 USD, this was no small "front pocket" purchase for me and my family. Based on existing agreement with PG&E of a GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED program I understood that there was some financial sense in taking the risk of essentially being the guinea pig owner this early version. I did the arithmetic and understood that I would get a substantial reduction in what would, otherwise, be an enormous electric bill. This, folks, was decided at a STATEWIDE level.

So along comes our bank of geniuses at City Hall and promotes a law that countermands an existing technology incentive passed by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Hello?

I'd like to be perfectly clear for the Arcata voters who have not yet weighed in on this issue, and have a few months to "think" about it. This proposed law runs at diametrically opposed cross currents to the legislation aimed at promoting new technology adoption. The city will get hit with a substantial lawsuit right up their so called "progressive" tailpipe if this proposal gets voted into law. Period. Exclamation point. It will be class action, it will be organized, and it will be supported, with technical assistance, by the industry which lobbied to give a tangible economic kick favoring the the adoption of this cutting edge technology to those of us who took that risk. A technology which, BTW, lessens carbon emissions. You think this is bullshit, press that button. I dare you.

If any of you Arcata citizens have the desire to show that you might have more common sense that these self aggrandizing city councilmen, women and staff, please give some consideration to the topic of what this lawsuit will cost the City, because YOU will pay for it, not them, AND it will strike down the law in the process.

The government of this little town should pay more attention to what it wastes our time on. Here is a condensed list of other good deeds they have recently committed:

1. Members of this City Council killed the longest running volunteer organized recycling center in the United States. (head on down 9th Street to see this historical monument to citizen initiative!)

2. Members of this City Council used parking meter funds to purchase homeless housing – then tried to place it on an unapproved subdivision in riparian watershed WITHOUT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. (These melting houses still sit precariously six feet in the air at 13th and O St, go take a look) A preschool teacher caught you in this act. Nice work, staff! Fearless, but Fairless, and Folly!

3. Members of this City Council promoted the building of a "new" recycling center out in Manila which almost immediately went bankrupt and crashed our Community Development loan corporation so badly it went out of business. Now the nationwide mafia garbage company is in the process of buying the complex from a bankruptcy referee at firesale prices. (Drive by it on the way to Manila, its BIG and BLUE and NEW.)

So, yes, go ahead and fly your "tax the pot farmers out of the city" law past us. Sounds like a grand idea, just brainless, (and maybe a little bit "yellowbellied") like a whole laundry list of recent crappy local government. Just, in the future: Don't ask us to volunteer anymore. Don't ask us to snitch our neighbors out. Don't ask us to pass a law which countermands State law. Don't ask us to allow PG&E to make millions of dollars during a downturn in their profits, from which you take your filthy, and fat cut. But most of all DON'T ASK US TO VOTE FOR YOU – ANY OF YOU- because if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.

The main reason that they dont just pull someone's electricity bill and raid, is that a high bill is not in and of itself, probable cause, nor is it generally within the purview of police to have access to that without a warrant. So, they await telephone calls from neighbors and/or a bust outside of the home which leads to a search warrant at the house.

I don't think that the police or agencies involved would be able to get a blanket list of those people who end up paying the increased tax. In fact, since the tax won't be used for anything but more enforcement (police) it really just another of the many ways we all get screwed because rather than have a police force suitable to the population, we will have a police force suited to the budget.