Myth-bust: Regulation & black markets

black

I appreciate honest Plumas commercial cannabis advocates’ desire to “eliminate” the cannabis black market in our county. However, statistics and real-world law enforcement accounts in Colorado and other states indicate that it’s just not happening. In fact, they show that legalization and regulation haven’t even begun to budge the needle toward elimination.

People who operate in black markets—with any product—simply adapt and overcome regulatory attempts. They’re clever and persistent—and aren’t going to stop because of any regulation. Don’t believe it? I invite any local commercial cannabis advocate to research reports from Colorado sheriffs and others tasked with enforcing regulation.

According to the Colorado Department of Public Safety, statistics show that arrests for the production of black market pot increased by 380 percent in the 2014-16 time frame. In fact, Colorado law enforcement agencies say they are “battling a boom in illegal marijuana cultivation by sometimes violent groups of criminals who rake in millions of dollars by exporting what they grow.”

Bigger magnet, bigger problem

When we consider that California produces seven times the cannabis the state can consume, it’s easy to imagine more criminals coming here to cultivate and export product than are doing so in Colorado.

Law enforcement testimony and statistics argue that California cannabis regulation—like Colorado’s, Washington’s and Oregon’s—will do little to reduce black market activity. Those who are willing to break the law for profit will continue to do so.

In fact, some growers in Humboldt County say they won’t be regulated because of the costs, restrictions and headaches involved. They say they’ll continue operating illegally and hope enforcement goes after bigger grows and leaves them alone.

Human nature resists regulation

The notion that regulation will eliminate the black market and make law-abiding citizens out of law-avoiding ones is not proving true in Colorado. Stats and real-world reports from those who are battling to enforce it say otherwise.

Are we to believe that Plumas County would somehow be the glorious exception? Human nature is human nature in any state, county … or on any planet.

24 comments on “Myth-bust: Regulation & black markets

  1. Ken Donnell says:

    I have heard similar claims about increased illegal activity in locations where commercial cannabis cultivation is legal, and decided to do some internet investigation about these claims.

    First, I found no hard statistical evidence presented to support this claims made by Mr. Luscri. There were reports of isolated or anecdotal incidents, including some comments local Sheriff’s and deputies. But careful reading indicated these are isolated, and not a broad representation of the current Colorado cannabis industry. . If these statistics do exist, i kindly ask Mr Luscri to provide the appropriate web links.

    Like in Plumas county, there do appear to be many persons frightened by the legalization of cannabis, and who are quick to point to specific incidents as evidence to support their much more broad claims. Some people always see a glass that is “half empty”

    I did note that there are multiple efforts in the Colorado legislature to improve what negative aspects to legalization have emerged. No one, including myself, is minimizing the difficulty of making such an historic transition as we are now experiencing with the legalization of cannabis, in California, and elsewhere. Yes there are problems that do need to be confronted and repaired.

    Perhaps the most definitive statement I encountered was issued by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper:

    “The negative factors we’re seeing less of each year and I would argue to the (U.S.) attorney general (Jeff Sessions) that the country has potential benefit to be able to see this experiment through to a natural conclusion. Let’s go a couple more years and see and get more data and really see, ‘Are we worse off or better off than we were before,’ ” ….. published in The Cannabist .

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Thanks for your comments, Mr. Donnell.

      You’re welcome to wade through the Colorado DPS report, and yes, you’ll find the usual caveats about it being too early to draw conclusions. I trust you can find it online on your own.

      Anecdotal evidence about Colorado’s thriving black market from law enforcement personnel on the ground is informative and compelling. I wouldn’t discount it in favor of information you’ll find elsewhere … like from The Cannabist.

      It’s interesting that Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is so confident about his state’s “shrinking black market” that he recently signed two bills allocating more money to fight it. It’s also interesting that those who work on the ground ferreting out illegal grows disagree with their office-bound governor.

      Again with the fear thing? Question: Why would a guy who smoked pot as a young man be fearful of it now? There is no fear here. There is conviction and resolve about this viewpoint: Commercial Cannabis activity is not a good thing for Plumas County.

      Mr. Donnell: Please accept this truth: Those who oppose commercial cannabis in Plumas are not fearful pessimists. We simply disagree with you concerning the pros and cons of allowing it in our county.

      Why label those who oppose you regarding this issue fearful and pessimistic? You consistently decry the battle/fight motif of our political and social disagreement, yet persist in labeling those who oppose your cannabis business desires in negative and inaccurate terms. This is counterproductive.

      Allow me to clear up any confusion by laying it out for you once more:

      We accept personal and medical cannabis use and Prop. 64. We accept indoor and outdoor grows of up to six plants. We want patients to have access to their medicine. We fully accept Prop. 64 as the law of the land. We do not advocate for prohibition. We are not operating from ignorance or fear.

      We simply do not accept your side’s vision of a commercial cannabis cornucopia of good for the county.

      We will not abandon our viewpoint in favor of yours. Do you see how your insistence that we drop our “fears” and acquiesce to your desires is a form of passive aggression?

      Let’s leave off the attempts to label and assign misplaced emotions and simply communicate using facts, logic and clear heads and hearts.

      What do ya say? You in?

    2. William Stivers says:

      I for one don’t want to see Plumas County used as an experiment to see if commercial cannabis activity will work here.

  2. Taurin Wilson says:

    You’re thinking on far too short of a time frame. After alcohol prohibition ended (1933), bootlegging and particularly bootlegging into dry states, continued to be popular well into the mid seventies.

    Alcohol prohibition fueled some the largest, most powerful, and most violent criminal organizations in US history, and is broadly considered to have been a failure. Now, bootlegging and the criminal elements associated with it, while still a thing that exists, is not something that effects everyday Americans any more.

    I am not a big fan of alcohol, but I am glad that we rolled up our sleeves and made a change as a nation to end prohibition; where would Dancing Cowboy Winery be, had we not. That generation decided to do the hard work that ultimately led to a greater level of safety for us all; sometimes the right choice and the easy choice are not the same thing.
    Thank you.

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Hi, Taurin

      I’m actually thinking in a shorter time frame than you may realize. I’m only thinking of between now and November 6.

      I appreciate your alcohol and prohibition comparison, but I don’t think it applies to our commercial cannabis issue for these reasons:

      1. Obviously, cannabis is federally illegal. And I know many think it’s only matter of time before it isn’t. Maybe. However, alcohol was legal before it was made illegal; cannabis has never been federally legal in the U.S.

      2. Even if cannabis is made legal federally, the potential profits for cartels will always exist and organized crime will always find a way to adapt to changing markets.

      3. Alcohol and cannabis are very different drugs. Enjoying a glass of wine or two five times a week has much different long-term effects than blowing the same number of doobies within the same time frame over time. Comparing the two is apples and oranges, really.

      I, too, am glad the short-lived alcohol prohibition went by the wayside. I enjoy good wine and beer. I don’t believe in prohibition and neither do members of our Cannabis Citizens Group (CCG).

      In case you don’t know, we fully support Prop. 64, cultivation of up to six plants per residence, and want patients to have access to their medicine. The simple truth is that allowing commercial cannabis in Plumas or in any state that cannabis has been made legal will not and has not curbed black markets.

      Thanks for you comments.

  3. Taurin Wilson says:

    Good to know, I am thinking on a much longer time frame, I’m in it for the long haul, I’m planning for long term future of Plumas County, the safety of my children and the future of the community they will live in after I’m gone; November to me is just a small step on a long journey.

    1) Cannabis was widely used in America both medically, and recreational before it was made illegal, just like alcohol. In the late nineteenth century, cannabis was a common ingredient in tinctures and remedies of all sorts, and was sold openly in public pharmacies. It wasn’t made illegal on the national level until the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

    Excerpt from the history.com article linked below.
    “Thing is, the drug wasn’t always prohibited. Anglo-Americans and Europeans have known about marijuana’s medicinal benefits since at least the 1830s. Around that time, Sir William Brooke O’Shaughnessy, an Irish doctor studying in India, documented that cannabis extracts could ease cholera symptoms like stomach pain and vomiting. By the late 19th century, Americans and Europeans could buy cannabis extracts in pharmacies and doctors’ offices to help with stomach aches, migraines, inflammation, insomnia, and other ailments.”
    https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illegal.

    2) I believe the black market will always exist, as it does for other legal products. There is a black market for the computer or laptop that you are reading this on, but did you buy it from some sketchy guy in an alley? Chances are you didn’t, because the risk to reward ratio makes it not worth it. Legalization won’t completely eliminate the black market, but it would over time undermine its economic foundations and relegate it to a more benign status, just as is the case with other legal commodities.
    3) I am pleased you agree as does the medical and scientific community. Alcohol has very little medical value, nowhere near cannabis; I agree comparing them is “apples and oranges” comparison.

    “I don’t believe in prohibition and neither do members of our Cannabis Citizens Group (CCG). In case you don’t know, we fully support Prop. 64, cultivation of up to six plants per residence, and want patients to have access to their medicine.”
    Your statement of support is just words at this point; you’ll need to put your support in actionable form if you want that statement to any have weight to it. We both know the reality is that I and almost everyone I know would not be able to grow six plants or have access to medicine under your ordinance due to setbacks, and acreage requirements. With all due respect, actions speak louder than words, if you really do “fully support Prop. 64, (and) cultivation of up to six plants per residence”, then you should have no problem demonstrating your support, not with your words, but through your ordinance.

    Thank you for responding, I’m hoping that through on going communication we can foster better understanding of the people on both sides of this debate. I believe we can both gain something positive out of this.
    Have a great day! Taurin

  4. Patrick Luscri says:

    Hi, Taurin. I think this conversation is helpful and positive as well.

    The difference between the legality and illegality of cannabis and alcohol is this: Alcohol was legal before it was illegal and then made legal again. Cannabis, in its former form as an ingredient, was neither legal nor illegal until it was made illegal, as you say, in 1937.

    There’s a difference between the regulated and legal drug alcohol and the formerly unregulated (and mostly ignored by the U.S. government) cannabis ingredients that existed in a gray area in this country—until they were made illegal. This is another reason why I think comparing the two drugs and their legal status and history is fruitless and is another example of their apples and oranges relationship (pun intended and kinda good ;D).

    Black markets for consumer electronics aren’t anywhere near as lucrative as cannabis and other drugs. The risk/reward ratio for black market cannabis is determined by much higher profit margins that a hot laptop.

    I’d like to see cannabis rescheduled and properly researched. We don’t know what we have in terms of medical benefits until we fully explore it. That said, I’m all for helping patients.

    When you say that you and almost everyone you know would not be able to grow up to six plants per our ordinance draft, do you mean outdoors or indoors or both?

    This is straight from our draft:

    Outdoor:
    1. The plants are not visible from any street.
    2. When growing up to 3 plants, the plants are setback from the premises property lines a minimum 25’ from sides & rear property lines, and 35’ front property line.
    3. When growing 4 to 6 plants, the plants are setback from the premises property lines a minimum 50’ from sides & rear property lines, and 70’ front property line.

    Indoor: The cultivation of up to six plants is conducted within a fully enclosed structure conforming to the following standards:

    1. From sunset to sunrise, light systems utilized in connection with cannabis cultivation shall be shielded, including adequate coverings on windows, to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure.
    2. All exterior doors shall be lockable.
    3. Such structure shall be a permitted residential use or accessory structure to a residential use.
    4. Each structure in which cannabis is cultivated shall be set back at least 10 feet from the side and rear premises property lines, and 25 feet from the front premises property lines.

    Waivers: (Special Use Permits)
    Outdoor growing: Allows the owner or occupant of the premises to seek a waiver or reduction to the minimum property line setbacks for cultivation by following the Special Use Permit process of Plumas County.

    Indoor growing: Except for the six-plant limit, allows the owner or occupant of the premises to seek a waiver or reduction to the requirements of indoor cultivation by following the Special Use Permit process of Plumas County.

    Today, I walked off setback distances for our 1,500 square-foot house in our blue-collar neighborhood in town and verified that I, under Prop. 64 AND our ordinance draft, could grow 1-3 plants outdoors. We have a smallish backyard, so if I had an extra 11 feet, I could grow up to six plants outdoors. However, because our backyard is against a field, I’m confident I could get a Special Use Permit (as allowed in our ordinance draft) to offset the 11-foot deficit.

    Or I could grow indoors per Prop. 64 AND our ordinance draft.

    So you see, Taurin, that our words aren’t just words—we’ve offered a reasonable, responsible and quite workable cannabis ordinance draft that affirms Prop. 64, personal grows, and medical marijuana patients. Our ordinance draft (and revisions to it) fully demonstrates support and flexibility for Prop. 64 and our county and its residents.

  5. Taurin Wilson says:

    Hi Patrick,
    Cannabis being neither legal nor illegal, before becoming officially illegal, is not something consumers would have been aware of, there was no warning label that said, “This one is neither legal nor illegal, but this one is officially legal. To the consumer there was zero difference; therefore it would have had absolutely no bearing on consumer’s perception of cannabis compared to alcohol at that time.
    “Black markets for consumer electronics aren’t anywhere near as lucrative as cannabis and other drugs.”
    Alcohol is a drug, but the black market for it is not lucrative, why? Alcohol is legal. In Nunavut, Canada’s most northern Territory, alcohol is banned in some communities and allowed in others. The going rate for a bottle of vodka from a community that has no alcohol restrictions is $50, the same bottle sells for $500 in a banned community. What’s the difference; it’s the same drug, the same exact bottle? Legal status. Alcohol was also extremely expensive during prohibition here.
    “The risk/reward ratio for black market cannabis is determined by much higher profit margins that a hot laptop.”
    This is exactly my point, and what is the common thread connecting these items? Legal status, consumer electronics are legally available everywhere.

    If I was interested in growing six plants indoor or outdoor on my property, under your ordinance, I would not be able to, this true for many people I know. In addition to setback requirements there is this:
    “(C) Except as provided in a waiver granted in accordance with subdivision (F), the cultivation of cannabis, in any amount or quantity, upon any premises located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any school, school bus stop, school evacuation site, church, park, child care center, or youth-oriented facility is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated in accordance with this Chapter.”
    There are 160 bus stop locations in Plumas County alone. Chances are you live within 1000’ of a bus stop, school, school evacuation site, church, park, child care center, or youth-oriented facility, almost everyone in Plumas County does.
    Now let’s talk Special Use Permits.
    From the Plumas County web site: “A special use permit usually requires some sort of environmental review document and a public hearing. All neighbors who own property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the permit property are notified by mail and a legal notice is published in the newspaper when the hearing date is established. Any member of the public may provide input on the proposed project and make their wishes known.
    “Special Use Permits can be approved, approved with added conditions, or denied.”
    How do you feel that it is “reasonable” to ask someone to have their name printed in the newspaper and all of their immediate neighbors notified that they want to grow something they need for a medical condition? I think you can understand why no one would actually do this.
    When you say “(we) want patients to have access to their medicine” while you simultaneously supporting an ordinance you wrote, that would objectively deny a large percentage of patients in Plumas County from having access to medicine; you should expect that folks will feel that your statement of support is incompatible with your actions. You can’t support access to something that you are actively denying access to.
    Thank you, Taurin Wilson

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Hi, Taurin

      I hear your arguments about growing and setbacks and see your points. I’m looking through our ordinance draft and comparing it to Prop. 64. I appreciate your concerns and logic and will get back to you on this.

      Thanks,
      Patrick

  6. Taurin Wilson says:

    Patrick,
    Thank you for hearing my concerns, and for expressing a desire to take the needs of medical patients under consideration, really, it means a lot to me. I enjoyed talking with you, and I learned quite a bit.
    Thanks, enjoy your summer.

  7. Taurin Wilson says:

    Patrick,
    I noticed three days after our conversation you’ve continued to post on your facebook page that the CGRCO ordinance is supportive of medical patients. I’m curious, Have you made the required changes to your ordinance like we discussed? You didn’t get back to me like you said you would.
    Taurin

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      I’ve actually been communicating with my fellow CCG group members about your concerns with our draft ordinance since at least June 13 via email, phone and in person. I even mentioned you by name several times.

      I haven’t gotten back to you because reaching consensus takes time, and why do so until I have definitive answers for you?

      I’ve continued posting that our group is supportive of medical patients because we absolutely are. Our draft ordinance IS supportive of medical patients—UNLESS you believe that it must allow commercial cannabis in Plumas to be so.

      Is this what you believe?

      1. Taurin Wilson says:

        Patrick,
        I’m talking about six plant personal/medical grows. Thank you for bringing this issue up to your members, and I can appreciate how difficult it can be to reach consensus in a group. However, the reason I brought up was not necessarily to ask you to change your ordinance, but to address accuracy in the representation of your ordinance.

        If I was to write an ordinance and asked folks to support my efforts because it supported people in Plumas owning fluffy puppies, I would want to support it, I’m pro fluffy puppy. If this fluffy puppy supportive ordinance was adopted as official policy, and after the fact I learned that this ordinance actually supported less people having less fluffy puppies I would feel like someone tricked me, especially if my support helped make it happen. Folks should not be mislead, intentionally or unintentionally, into supporting a policy that is counter to their interests. There is another ordinance that is anti commercial but fully supportive of personal/medical.
        I can see that you feel that because your ordinance allows some people to grow cannabis that this constitutes as being supportive of medical patients. However this is misleading, if you were someone who grows six medical plants and you were looking at this issue, you could based on the CGRCO’s claims, end up supporting an ordinance that would actually take away the rights that you though you were protecting through your support of the CGRCO ordinance. Would this be fair to this person?
        You guys should absolutely write and support an ordinance that reflects your views, but be accurate, no one deserves to be tricked into giving away their rights. Your ordinance would result in less people having less access to medical cannabis, people have the right to make an informed choice.
        Thank you

        1. Patrick Luscri says:

          Taurin,
          You seem to be pitting our representation of our ordinance against your understanding of it as it pertains to the ability for Plumas residents to grow up to six plants. Is this accurate?

          Your assertion that our ordinance would allow “some people to grow cannabis” is simply not true. Our draft ordinance allows ANY adult Plumas resident to grow up to six plants inside their residence by meeting the SAME requirements mandated by Prop. 64.

          As you know, Prop. 64 gives counties and municipalities the power to restrict outdoor personal grows and/or to ban all or some types of commercial cannabis activity.

          It would be far more accurate to say that some people would not be able to grow cannabis outdoors in Plumas per our draft ordinance—IF they’re unwilling to grow in a lockable structure—AND if they live within 1,000 feet of school or church—AND if they fail to secure a waiver for good cause, which would include hardship.

          There’s no trickery going on from our group regarding our draft ordinance. Our ordinance would allow ALL adult residents to grow up to six plants and MOST to grow them outside.

          Bottom line: Any responsible ordinance will have to weigh outdoor personal grow freedom with child safety. And all responsible residents should do the same.

          1. Taurin Wilson says:

            Patrick, please help me increase my understanding of the CGRCO ordinance, can anyone who lives within 1000 feet of a school, school bus stop, school evacuation site, church, park, child care center, or youth-oriented facility, grow six plants without a waiver under this ordinance? If the answer is no, or yes but only with a waiver, than I am correct in my understanding that your ordinance would deny access to a large percentage of Plumas residents.
            “Our ordinance would allow ALL adult residents to grow up to six plants and MOST to grow them outside.”
            Is this with or without a “waiver’ AKA a special use permit?
            We’ve discussed the waiver process and the requirements involved, such as; “A special use permit usually requires some sort of environmental review document and a public hearing. All neighbors who own property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the permit property are notified by mail and a legal notice is published in the newspaper when the hearing date is established”. There are a multitude of reasons why almost no one would be willing to have their intention to grow cannabis printed in the paper.
            One of the biggest and most obvious reasons is that there is still a stigma attached to cannabis, most people would prefer their personal choices or medical needs to not affect their personal relationships with folks who still attach a negative connotation to cannabis, or their employment opportunities in this county, their privacy should be protected.
            The other thing that to me should be obvious, but doesn’t appear to have been considered, is that having everyone in your neighborhood notified and your name and address printed in the paper, is a really good way to get robbed. Thieves from all over the state or other states could purchase the local paper and essentially go shopping for who they wanted to rob. The use of the waiver system, as suggested, would invite theft and possibly physical harm to Plumas residents with medical conditions, and with it the implication of legal culpability.
            Can we agree that the waiver process is not a viable option?
            I agree that child safety is paramount to this discussion. To this end, there is no reason that an outdoor garden couldn’t be locked. A good fence is no less secure that plywood. Are the locks on a secured indoor structure somehow made differently than the locks available for a secured outdoor structure? A 7 foot fence to obscure visibility, a locked secured fence structure, or ridged greenhouse, problem solved.

            Even requiring indoor growing in certain areas, would impose a huge cost, effectively denying access to folks who are growing because they can’t afford to buy what they need out of county; this comprises a large percentage of Plumas residents. Disagree? Provide an accurate cost breakdown that can support this position.
            “There’s no trickery going on from our group regarding our draft ordinance.”
            Its only trickery if you knowingly deceive people, my hope is to bring awareness of the implications of your ordinance, so as to help facilitate accuracy in the understanding and the representation of it.

            Thank you for taking the time to respond.

  8. Michael C says:

    Something else to consider. Commercial cannabis drives up commercial property values and drives out other businesses. I lost a lease in Yolo county and upon looking in Plumas found sellers full of weed riches dreams. Do you want to support mega grow operations or small business . More money to be made by government with weed…maybe i’ll tune in turn on and drop out. Shut my business down and grow weed in the space. 10 less employees and way more profit. Legal small time grows are a good thing. Big business grows not so cool when you look at the big picture.

  9. Kimberly Scott says:

    The requirement for a medical patient to apply for a special use permit to grow their medicine is a HIPPA violation. The ordinance proposed by Mr. Luscri would immediately fail based on that alone.

    The only real alternative to Measure B is the County’s Working Group Ordinance.

    I believe anyone who compares Measure B to the Working Group’s ordinance will find Measure B to be a far more restrictive ordinance while not violating people’s rights.

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Thanks for your comment, Kim.

      Our ordinance draft does not require patients or non-patients to apply for waivers to grow their medicine. Any adult resident can grow up to six plants inside their residence per Prop. 64, which we accept and uphold with respect to rule of law. Our proposed waiver option affects only outdoor grows (outside of lockable structures) with respect to setback requirements.

      It is completely unrelated and unaffected to or by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). HIPAA rules apply to medical professionals and associated businesses regarding disclosure of private patient medical information. It is unrelated to counties regarding setback requirement waivers. It seems like you may be conflating HIPAA with civil discrimination offenses. The waiver option in our proposed ordinance cannot and does not discriminate on civil grounds. It simply provides a waiver option that the county could use to set up a waiver process. I know about HIPAA because I help handle my dentist wife’s adherence to all things HIPAA in her practice.

      Question: Since Prop 215 became California law, would a dispensary that required patients to show their 215 card and/or doctor’s recommendation be in violation of HIPAA? The answer is no because Props. 215 and 64 AND our ordinance draft waiver options are unrelated to HIPAA.

      In short, our proposed ordinance would not fail for any reason related to HIPAA. As far as alternatives go, it is the ONLY responsible alternative to the negative consequences of our county adopting either the CWG’s original commercial cannabis ordinance OR your Measure B commercial cannabis ballot initiative.

  10. Taurin Wilson says:

    Patrick,
    do you think the SUP process is a safe option, do you think patients will use it?

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      What do you mean by safe?

      1. Taurin Wilson says:

        What I mean by, “do you think the SUP process is a safe option”, is that posting someones name in the news paper in connection with growing cannabis would leave citizens vulnerable to theft, and the possibility of physical attack.

  11. Taurin Wilson says:

    “Our proposed waiver option affects only outdoor grows”.
    Are you sure? Your ordinance states, “Except as provided in a waiver granted in accordance with subdivision (F), the cultivation of cannabis, in any amount or quantity, upon any premises located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any school, school bus stop, school evacuation site, church, park, child care center, or youth-oriented facility is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated in accordance with this Chapter.”
    This seems clear, the cultivation of cannabis, in any amount or quantity, upon any premises located within one thousand (1,000) feet of said locations is hereby declared to be unlawful, and the only exception given is a “waiver” AKA a Special Use Permit.
    So how does the waiver option only affect outdoor growers? The only exception is a waiver, I see no exception for indoor.
    Can someone grow six plants indoors within 1000 feet of any school, school bus stop, school evacuation site, church, park, child care center, or youth-oriented facility, without a waiver?

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Hi, Taurin

      My statement you quoted above is correct because our draft ordinance now reads thusly:

      “Except as provided in a waiver granted in accordance with subdivision (F), the outdoor cultivation of cannabis, in any amount or quantity, upon any premises located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any school, school evacuation site, church, park, child care center, or youth-oriented facility is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated in accordance with this Chapter.”

      Thanks to your pointing out an inadvertent prohibition that was solved simply by adding the word, “outdoor,” I’ve finally achieved a consensus-based revision that amends our draft ordinance to clarify that school-related setbacks apply ONLY to outdoor grows that are not within lockable structures. (Please notice the addition of the word “outdoor” before the first mention of cultivation in the opening sentence above. Please also notice that the “school bus stop” language has been removed.)

      To answer your question unequivocally, “Can someone grow six plants indoors within 1000 feet of any school, school bus stop, school evacuation site, church, park, child care center, or youth-oriented facility, without a waiver?”

      YES, they can.

      Our revised draft ordinance can be downloaded here: https://plumasgrow.com/ccg-cannabis-ordinance-draft/

      Thanks for your help on this.

  12. Taurin Wilson says:

    You’re welcome,
    That bit of misrepresentation is taken care of, now we still have the claim of fully supporting personal medical cannabis.
    Your ordinance would objectively make access to medical cannabis more difficult for Plumas residents due to setbacks, indoor requirements, and the non-viability of the waiver option.
    The CGRCO ordinance would set personal medical rights back twenty years in this county, I think it is problematic to construe this as supportive. If your group feels that it should be more difficult for people to grow six medical plants and that their personal rights to do so should be reduced, that’s your opinion and you have the right to fight for that, but the public has a right to understand that that is you mission.

    Taurin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *